Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

[Scout Tactical]

Although, Hang on......isn't disallowing atheist kids from joining the Boy Scouts, discrimination in and of itself? So it's a discriminatory system saying that it's being discriminated against?
Oh god my head hurts now.

The BSA is a private organization, and a faith-based one. It is discriminatory for a good reason. It would be illogical to let an atheist in the Catholic clergy, it wouldn't make sense to have church's baseball team's pitcher be an atheist, and it wouldn't make sense to have atheists in the Boy Scouts. While the BSA do engage in a variety of activities that are not directly religious (ie: camping, fishing), churches do the same thing (picnics, sports). They have been sued over their refusal to let atheists in hundreds of times, and they have never lost a case over it. They occasionally strip Eagle Scouts of their honor if they find out later on that they are atheists, because this is a betrayal of several of the most sacred tenants of the Boy Scouts. To be trustworthy, honest, morally clean, and reverent. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying atheists are not trustworthy, et cetera, but I'm saying that if you lie for your entire time in the Boy Scouts, claiming you're a theist when you are not, that's dishonest.

Exactly. I am an Eagle Scout, but am an atheist

I know several atheist Eagle Scouts, though I certainly never mentioned it to the leadership. It would be kind of a prick move to do that, knowing they would get stripped of their honor.

 

[Ekibiogami]

Banning Violent Games Tops Conservative's To Do List

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Reading the rest of Schlafly's resolutions leaves me equally stupefied. You think it's that important that Good Friday become a State Holiday? Or that it's worth writing a law against companies who "discriminate against the Boy Scouts"? Really?

Source: Townhall.com [http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2011/01/04/new_years_resolutions_for_state_legislators/page/full/]

Permalink

I'm not sure you or this crazy woman understand the meaning of the word "conservative".
"Conservative", by definition, implies a desire to embrace policies or values of the past. Prior to the 60s era of LBJ, the mass censorship of a medium, ANY MEDIUM, would have been seen with disgust. This lady is not a conservative, and is clearly a Right-Wing progressive. Supporting total censorship and mass government control in favor of Left-Wing or Right-Wing ideologies is a relatively new thing in America.

This.
Im ready for the party to split so we can get away from these Nut Jobs.

 

[alimination602]

One of the main things I have always hated about politicians is their ability to dangle a not so important issue in front of the eyes of the voters like foil to a Magpie and suddenly that gets them an insane number of votes just from that!

It doesn?t matter what their other policies are, their party, what they stand for etc but they can go to any extremist group they want and say ?If you elect me I will ban XXXXX? and because extremist groups are usually some of the most dedicated voters you?ve got a major chunk of the voters already secure just from that.

Politicians don?t really care about video games they?ve got bigger things to deal with- the economy, drug legislation, all those wars they?ve either started/are currently fighting/supporting in other countries.

I?ve been playing violent games since I was 6. I?ve done any number of unspeakable things in video games- in GOW2 I used a chainsaw to perform heart surgery on a giant worm, in KOTOR I sold a planet into slavery for a bit of extra cash, in Fallout 3 I?ve engaged in cannibalism and detonated a nuclear bomb in the centre of a town, closer to reality in GTA I?ve carjacked an endless number of vehicles, burned people alive with flamethrowers and run my own counterfeit money printing operation. That doesn?t mean I?m ever going to do any of those things in real life- mostly because I?m not in a position to sell a planet into slavery and I haven?t finished the template for the new alimination602 $1000 dollar bill yet.

Games are no different than comics, film, TV, art etc all of which have displayed an equally graphic amount of violence and are widely available and marketed to children. Games are solely being targeted because they?re the latest thing and because they?ve become popular- if no one knew about them no one would ever care.

The film Starship Troopers 3 openly declared the concept that A. God exists. B. He supports an oppressive government. C. He supports war and genocide on a massive scale! The only reason there wasn?t a massive uproar about it was because the film was shit and never made it into the public consciousness. But solely because Modern Warfare 2 was popular and showed a graphic slaughter of innocent civilians it made front page headlines despite there being far worse atrocities going on in both reality and video games.

Games allow us to do the things that we can?t do in reality without consequence. In real life we can?t jump off a building because we?ll die- in a game doesn?t matter. I feel that is why games like GTA and films like Saw were so popular- because they showed/allowed you to do the things which we can?t do in real life.

The only reason this is even a proper political issue is because it?s a low hanging fruit for politicians, extremist groups won?t let it settle and the media loves to turn the pot of controversy because it sells! The main flames of hatred are usually from the biased media who condemn video game violence while openly promoting real world violence in the form of the wars they so love informing us about.

The whole concept is completely backwards because it?s only giving these violent video games more attention and enticing the kids even further. This was exactly what happened with G20 and Student Protests in London- the media spent weeks hyping them up and ?Accidently? putting ideas into the nations head so that when the day came they were there ready with a camera crew to sell the carnage. If the media hadn?t mentioned them those protests would likely have amounted to little more than a few gangs of truly dedicated people shouting at government buildings before being moved on by the police.

If we stopped making such a big deal of it and stopped making the concept so forbiddingly appealing then they would quickly realize it?s not so much of a big deal and forget about it.

 

[SinisterGehe]

I don't see a problem, you already can't sell M rated "violent" videogames to kids without parents buying it for them.

Maybe she wants a government official to stand by every shop that sells games and check that the guardian buying the game is really the guardian of the child and is aware of the possible "Harmful consequences" to the child, and the parent must give hes/hers consent as an official document with 3 signatures and a photocopy.
That should bring down the unemployment numbers of government officials... And wouldn't change a damn thing...

 

[Ddgafd]

I think they have more important things to worry about rather than trying to cover for shitty parents. How about we do this? A license to breed and raise children. You and your spouse go to a class to learn how to raise a child. You have to pass three exams to be allowed to have kids and must be of a certain IQ level to gain admittance. There! I just made your problems of violent videogames and other media totally negligible.

It won't work. Why? Because people have free will. Just because they require a license doesn't mean that they will raise their kids like the textbook says. Besides, needing a certain level of IQ to have kids? Stupid people can have smart kids, it depends on the way they're raised and the environment that they live in.
You didn't help at all, just created a more controversial method of birth control.

 

[ImprovizoR]

How about instead of banning everything you can get your hands on, you stop ignoring the real problem and let the parents do their jobs if they feel like it. It's parents fault, and nobody else. So if parents have suddenly turned into retarded brainless morons - that's the problem. Fix that instead.

 

[Something Amyss]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

The Escpaist isn't doing that. That kind of reaction makes me wonder if this new statute is really being "crammed down our throat" or if it's a similar kneejerk reaction.

 

[Iron Mal]

Allow me to take a moment to compare the sheer panic and condemnation that is aimed at games to another incident that should have sparked more controversy than any violent videogame.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/

In this case, a child (aged 8) was killed at a gun fair by a shot to the head with an Uzi while under adult supervision. Despite incidents like this and the Colomnbine shooting (as well as many other tragic incidents) many Americans of all political standings defend their rigts as US citizens to bear arms of varying sizes and deadliness.

They will defend their right to own firearms (things that were designed to harm and kill human beings) with a uncompromising resolve (often quoting the line 'if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns') but they will condemn video games because they believe that it can be harmful.

Not because it has been proven to be harmful, but because they think it is.

This is a depressing observation to make.

 

[Sarah Kerrigan]

I swear to god if this ***** does this....

Ok I'm calm now.

 

[Capslockbroken]

Oh you Conservatives... fuck the poor, amirite?

Good to see there's still some of us who haven't left the 20th century ._.

No, you're not "rite".

 

[Amphoteric]

Don't people have better things to do than to talk about Video Games in politics? It isn't a big issue.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

No, you're not "rite".

/satire

Edit: I'll expand on this...

The Tories in the UK are money grabbing bastards I was making a joke of it.

 

[deth2munkies]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

When someone is a politician it is standard practice to mention their party alignment when introducing them. You'll notice that nowhere does it mention conservatives as a whole (except to say that she, A SINGLE PERSON, thinks they should do X Y & Z), the title is using Conservative's pertaining to a SINGLE CONSERVATIVE I'm sure. You're projecting.

I'm well aware of what it ACTUALLY says, but don't tell me you read it, read my post, then went back and re-read the thread title. It's completely misleading in its current wording as evidenced by a good number of posts in this thread ALREADY.

It's only misleading if you jump in with the preconceived notion that its intention is to bash Conservatives because:

1.) You hate Conservatives yourself

OR

2.) You are used to seeing Conservatives get bashed, and are projecting that expectation onto the title.

What would you have called it? "Woman who just happens to be a Conservative and is not representative of the party as a whole wants Violent Video Games banned"?

Because it SHOULD be mentioned that she is conservative (because that's standard practice, if it was a Liberal, that should be mentioned too) and that alternative title is pretty fucking wordy.

Stop being so sensitive, you conservatives always make trouble where there isn't any! (that was a joke)

If I put up a title that says "Negros Does not Like Video Games", and I was referring to John Negros who lives down the street, you'd STILL get half the posts declaring me a racist at worst or a generalist at best. Making your thread titles less apt to spark controversy helps discourse along and cuts out the extraneous bullshit. This woman isn't representing herself as a conservative at all in the stated work, or the principles of modern conservatism either. You have to reach all the way back to classical conservative radicals to even categorize her as one and THAT's a stretch. It was posted on a conservative website, that's all.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Conservatives, getting the government out of our lives so that it can run our lives. Wait, what?

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

The BSA is a private organization, and a faith-based one. It is discriminatory for a good reason. It would be illogical to let an atheist in the Catholic clergy, it wouldn't make sense to have church's baseball team's pitcher be an atheist, and it wouldn't make sense to have atheists in the Boy Scouts. While the BSA do engage in a variety of activities that are not directly religious (ie: camping, fishing), churches do the same thing (picnics, sports). They have been sued over their refusal to let atheists in hundreds of times, and they have never lost a case over it.

Firstly, i hope you're aware of the fact that Scouting, intrinsically, has nothing at all to do with religion. AT ALL. I've been to a couple Jamboree's in my tenure, one of them being the 21st WSJ 2007 in the UK (You're obviously a scout, so i take it that you know what that is.) and all of these Jamborees have multi-faith events where any scout of any religion can learn about any other religion .etc. Picking and choosing specific religions and allowing only them to join seems almost antithetical to the "scout message" of equality and brotherhood inspite of differences. That s my opinion at least.

They occasionally strip Eagle Scouts of their honor if they find out later on that they are atheists, because this is a betrayal of several of the most sacred tenants of the Boy Scouts. To be trustworthy, honest, morally clean, and reverent. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying atheists are not trustworthy, et cetera, but I'm saying that if you lie for your entire time in the Boy Scouts, claiming you're a theist when you are not, that's dishonest.

Yeah...... people don't CHOOSE Atheism at birth. People BECOME Atheists through life experience. They experience certain events that, for whatever reason convinces them that their is no/may or may not be a God. That's what happened to me anyway (watch Movie Bobs latest "big picture" if you haven't already) In other words they "change their mind" NOT "lie to get an eagle badge" So to strip them of their honor because of this seems like.......well, like an excuse to keep slates clean, really.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Oh, it's just for selling them to children younger than 17. I have no problem with that... I thought they were going to ban violence is games all together. If they try that, I'm going after them asking why shit like SAW would be legal to make as a movie, but no violent games?

 

[Capslockbroken]

Schlafly? That pokemon's adorable! Oh, wait...

On a serious note, please remember that there are people on both sides of the aisle who want to ban violent videogames--this is not a purely conservative or purely liberal thing. The fact Rush Limbaugh is actually against the censorship of games says volumes.

Ha!
"Schlafly, I choose you!"
"bzzz bzzzzz bzzbzz bzzz"
"Completely out of touch hot-air mega-annoy attack!!"
"bzzz bzz BZZZZZZ!!"

rofl!



Excellent point about Limbaugh, by the way.

 

[AlternatePFG]

These kids didn't go out and buy the games themselves. They MIGHT have bought the headset with the $50 allowance their spoiled little brat ass gets every week, but they didn't buy the game himself.

Headset but not the game..?

What the hell are you talking about, lol

Technically, they can't buy the game if it's rated M. They need their parent to buy it or at least have their parent with them in order to buy it, and given how spoiled some kids are today, it's probably the former.

Sure they can, it's entirely legal for kids to buy M rated games (In USA anyway) it's Gamestop's store policy (that they only enforce sporadically) that stops them, and even then it only stops them if they choose to buy the game AT GAMESTOP.

Actually in Illinois at least, you have to be 17 or older to buy M-rated games. Stores that don't enforce this policy can be fined.

 

[DataSnake]

Aren't conservatives supposed to be against the whole "nanny state" ideology?

 

[Danpascooch]

Alright, I'm going to nip this in the bud here: ONE CRAZY ***** DOES NOT REPRESENT ALL OF CONSERVATISM. STOP DOING THAT ESCAPIST.

I just came from Teamliquid where evidently all Texans are crazy because we don't like a fairly abusive new statute the EPA is trying to cram down our throats, I've had enough of political misrepresentation and ignorance today.

When someone is a politician it is standard practice to mention their party alignment when introducing them. You'll notice that nowhere does it mention conservatives as a whole (except to say that she, A SINGLE PERSON, thinks they should do X Y & Z), the title is using Conservative's pertaining to a SINGLE CONSERVATIVE I'm sure. You're projecting.

I'm well aware of what it ACTUALLY says, but don't tell me you read it, read my post, then went back and re-read the thread title. It's completely misleading in its current wording as evidenced by a good number of posts in this thread ALREADY.

It's only misleading if you jump in with the preconceived notion that its intention is to bash Conservatives because:

1.) You hate Conservatives yourself

OR

2.) You are used to seeing Conservatives get bashed, and are projecting that expectation onto the title.

What would you have called it? "Woman who just happens to be a Conservative and is not representative of the party as a whole wants Violent Video Games banned"?

Because it SHOULD be mentioned that she is conservative (because that's standard practice, if it was a Liberal, that should be mentioned too) and that alternative title is pretty fucking wordy.

Stop being so sensitive, you conservatives always make trouble where there isn't any! (that was a joke)

If I put up a title that says "Negros Does not Like Video Games", and I was referring to John Negros who lives down the street, you'd STILL get half the posts declaring me a racist at worst or a generalist at best. Making your thread titles less apt to spark controversy helps discourse along and cuts out the extraneous bullshit. This woman isn't representing herself as a conservative at all in the stated work, or the principles of modern conservatism either. You have to reach all the way back to classical conservative radicals to even categorize her as one and THAT's a stretch. It was posted on a conservative website, that's all.

That's because it's not common practice to announce someones race when you are commenting on their political views.

But when you are talking about the POLITICAL VIEWS of a POLITICIAN it's more or less universally accepted that you should mention their POLITICAL PARTY when introducing them. Notice how on CSPAN there are little (D) or (R) icons next to them? Yeah.