Crying Wolf

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Crying Wolf

What's the difference between a Massachusetts teen protesting dog killing in Call of Duty and a high-ranking German elected official calling for a ban on violent games? The teenager might grow out of it.

Permalink
 

Bored Tomatoe

New member
Aug 15, 2008
3,619
0
0
This is just hurting the animal rights cause and giving teens a bad name as overreactive hippies. *Sigh* It is a sad day to be an American teenager.
 

Keane Ng

New member
Sep 11, 2008
5,892
0
0
Bored Tomatoe said:
This is just hurting the animal rights cause and giving teens a bad name as overreactive hippies. *Sigh* It is a sad day to be an American teenager.
Isn't every day a sad day to be an American teen?
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Even when I was a teenager I never understood other teens with all the over-reacting they did. I do have to say this though. If complaining over a video game is the worst problem in her life then I truly do envy her. Her life must be so hard watching digital animals be killed compared to world famine, disease, war, the economy and the icecapades.
 

Yog Sothoth

New member
Dec 6, 2008
1,037
0
0
Excellent article and an excellent point. Thank-you, especially for the Nazi dogs. That really made me smile....

Kinda reminds me of the mentality at 4chan and /b/.... gore, child pornography and bestiality are ok, but you'd better not even think about abusing a helpless ketteh lest you incur their wrath...
 

Avatar Roku

New member
Jul 9, 2008
6,169
0
0
Mr Chalk, I love you. Wolves have been my favorite animals for a long time.

Oh, and you're right about the other stuff, but I kind of fixated on that.
 

Brotherofwill

New member
Jan 25, 2009
2,566
0
0
Awww, poor doggies...this protest is useless.
Keane Ng said:
Bored Tomatoe said:
This is just hurting the animal rights cause and giving teens a bad name as overreactive hippies. *Sigh* It is a sad day to be an American teenager.
Isn't every day a sad day to be an American teen?
That's almost poetry... so very true.
 

man-man

New member
Jan 21, 2008
163
0
0
The other difference of perception between a dog and a wolf, is that a lot of dog breeds are far smaller and less physically powerful than any wolf. Even 'big' dogs are outmatched by wolves, because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be a manageable size. Also been breeding them to be less aggressive, more communicative with humans, more useful to us.

So the reason we see wolves as more dangerous... they are more dangerous. I still like them as an animal, but it's understandable that we'd fear them - they're highly effective predators after all.
 

UltraBlumpkin

New member
Aug 1, 2008
138
0
0
Well when you bought the game, were you expecting to be shooting soldiers or dogs? This is a mainstream game that will have a lot of kids and adults playing through it. I don't know of any parents that want to teach their kids to shoot dogs, or that it is somehow justifiable. I don't blame the group for being upset about it, there is nothing shameful in protecting animal rights, even virtual ones.

Furthermore, criticizing them for speaking out against it, but not against the humans getting shot is a poor straw man argument. This is an animal rights group that is protesting the animal cruelty. Makes sense right? You don't criticize an AIDS researcher for not curing cancer, so why criticize an animal rights group for not protecting humans?
 

kawligia

New member
Feb 24, 2009
779
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Well when you bought the game, were you expecting to be shooting soldiers or dogs? This is a mainstream game that will have a lot of kids and adults playing through it. I don't know of any parents that want to teach their kids to shoot dogs, or that it is somehow justifiable. I don't blame the group for being upset about it, there is nothing shameful in protecting animal rights, even virtual ones.

Furthermore, criticizing them for speaking out against it, but not against the humans getting shot is a poor straw man argument. This is an animal rights group that is protesting the animal cruelty. Makes sense right? You don't criticize an AIDS researcher for not curing cancer, so why criticize an animal rights group for not protecting humans?
The fact that they are "virtual" as opposed to "actual" means precisely that they don't have rights...because they aren't real. If vitrual life forms have rights, they I guess the majority of people who have played "The Sims" would be either going to jail or getting sued for any number of things done to hurt the "virtual rights" of non-existent "Sims." Oh and I guess all those creatures in "Spore" should be granted protection under the endangered species act too.

They should be criticized because their argument has no merit whatsoever and they are exploiting raw sensationalism. Unlike you, the vast majority of the rest of the world is able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. For the few that can't they can still understand that animal cruelty while NOT playing a video game results in jail time.

Oh and for the icing on the cake, even if the events in game WERE actually real, it STILL wouldn't be animal cruelty because those dogs are attacking YOU and trying to KILL YOU. You are only defending yourself.

P.S. Even if your argument had substantive merit, calling yourself "UltraBlumpkin" robs your posts of any possibility of being taken seriously.
 

Eri

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,626
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Well when you bought the game, were you expecting to be shooting soldiers or dogs? This is a mainstream game that will have a lot of kids and adults playing through it. I don't know of any parents that want to teach their kids to shoot dogs, or that it is somehow justifiable. I don't blame the group for being upset about it, there is nothing shameful in protecting animal rights, even virtual ones.

Furthermore, criticizing them for speaking out against it, but not against the humans getting shot is a poor straw man argument. This is an animal rights group that is protesting the animal cruelty. Makes sense right? You don't criticize an AIDS researcher for not curing cancer, so why criticize an animal rights group for not protecting humans?
You're retarded. Just had to get that out of the way first off. When I bought this game I was expecting to kill Nazis. I had no specific intentions of them being human or whatever else, but it is obvious to most they will mostly be human. Playing a FPS does not teach one to kill people, NOR does it teach people to kill dogs. Yes it's justifiable you retard, they are trying to KILL you. You don't seem to understand that. You seem to overlook the fact it would be the parent's fault for buying their child a game they didn't like. There are no animal rights for pixels. PIXELS. Guess what? If this we're real life, they'd still have no rights because, again, they are trying to murder you. And no, it doesn't make sense because activist groups cant protest something that doesn't exist.
 
Nov 5, 2007
453
0
0
Where was she when Mario was stomping defenceless turtles, you were hunting ducks with a vicious dog, Donkey Kong was stomping on snakes and armadillos, red birds got stuffed in a brown bear backpack and rpg hero killed bats for golds ?
 

Giftmacher

New member
Jul 22, 2008
137
0
0
Brilliant piece, I agree with most of it... except for the MMO wolf killing. I don't think it's got anything to do with dogs being cuddlier/wolves having an image problem. Personally, I doubt the kid is aware of this aspect of MMO gameplay. After all it's not as if the animals you kill in WOW aren't cute and therefore liable to distress air-head school kids.

For my part I think the fuss exposes something rather different; some animal rights activists are in reality misanthropes.

Gift.
 

xLANKYx

New member
Aug 1, 2008
72
0
0
man-man said:
The other difference of perception between a dog and a wolf, is that a lot of dog breeds are far smaller and less physically powerful than any wolf. Even 'big' dogs are outmatched by wolves, because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be a manageable size. Also been breeding them to be less aggressive, more communicative with humans, more useful to us.

So the reason we see wolves as more dangerous... they are more dangerous. I still like them as an animal, but it's understandable that we'd fear them - they're highly effective predators after all.
there are afew species of dog that are "designed" for killing/fighting - maybe not humans & they may not be able to take a wolf on but some dogs can be very dangerous. (what about wolfhounds, were they not a breed of dog "designed" to hunt wolfs, i dont know if they cud take a wolf on 1 v 1 but they must have been able to handle themselfs)
 

kawligia

New member
Feb 24, 2009
779
0
0
ShadowKirby said:
Where was she when Mario was stomping defenceless turtles, you were hunting ducks with a vicious dog, Donkey Kong was stomping on snakes and armadillos, red birds got stuffed in a brown bear backpack and rpg hero killed bats for golds ?
They didn't care because turtles and ducks are huggy and cuddley. She cries about imaginary violence against an imaginary dog, but I'm sure she has no problem poisoning ugly rats and roaches in REAL life.

The animal rights movement is even more hypocritical than it is absurd.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Well when you bought the game, were you expecting to be shooting soldiers or dogs? This is a mainstream game that will have a lot of kids and adults playing through it. I don't know of any parents that want to teach their kids to shoot dogs, or that it is somehow justifiable. I don't blame the group for being upset about it, there is nothing shameful in protecting animal rights, even virtual ones.

Furthermore, criticizing them for speaking out against it, but not against the humans getting shot is a poor straw man argument. This is an animal rights group that is protesting the animal cruelty. Makes sense right? You don't criticize an AIDS researcher for not curing cancer, so why criticize an animal rights group for not protecting humans?
QFT
 

Stevo1230

New member
Mar 19, 2009
10
0
0
I can't stand this kind of political and reporting scapegoats that focus and make a big deal out of ridiculous stuff. The most idiotic of which being the recent "Animal Crossing linked to Pedophilia" story. I do love animals and wolves are my favorite, but this is just stupid. They're not real. They are digital representations of dogs. It's just a game and in this one, I do believe these dogs are trying to rip your throat out. So yeah, I will defend myself.

From a training Zoologist with common sense.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Keane Ng said:
Bored Tomatoe said:
This is just hurting the animal rights cause and giving teens a bad name as overreactive hippies. *Sigh* It is a sad day to be an American teenager.
Isn't every day a sad day to be an American teen?
*Sigh* Yeah...pretty much.
Stevo1230 said:
I can't stand this kind of political and reporting scapegoats that focus and make a big deal out of ridiculous stuff. The most idiotic of which being the recent "Animal Crossing linked to Pedophilia" story. I do love animals and wolves are my favorite, but this is just stupid. They're not real. It's just a game and in this one, I do believe these dogs are trying to rip your throat out. So yeah, I will defend myself.

From a training Zoologist with common sense.
I agree, for the most p--WHAT was linked to pedophilia?
Blrhgurlbhr. I hate people.
Okay, okay. I read that story. I remember. That was dumb.
Wolves are my favourite as well, so much so that often, I won't even bother to kill animals in-game.
I prefer killing humans...
Maybe I have issues.
 

UltraBlumpkin

New member
Aug 1, 2008
138
0
0
kawligia said:
UltraBlumpkin said:
Well when you bought the game, were you expecting to be shooting soldiers or dogs? This is a mainstream game that will have a lot of kids and adults playing through it. I don't know of any parents that want to teach their kids to shoot dogs, or that it is somehow justifiable. I don't blame the group for being upset about it, there is nothing shameful in protecting animal rights, even virtual ones.

Furthermore, criticizing them for speaking out against it, but not against the humans getting shot is a poor straw man argument. This is an animal rights group that is protesting the animal cruelty. Makes sense right? You don't criticize an AIDS researcher for not curing cancer, so why criticize an animal rights group for not protecting humans?
The fact that they are "virtual" as opposed to "actual" means precisely that they don't have rights...because they aren't real. If vitrual life forms have rights, they I guess the majority of people who have played "The Sims" would be either going to jail or getting sued for any number of things done to hurt the "virtual rights" of non-existent "Sims." Oh and I guess all those creatures in "Spore" should be granted protection under the endangered species act too.

They should be criticized because their argument has no merit whatsoever and they are exploiting raw sensationalism. Unlike you, the vast majority of the rest of the world is able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. For the few that can't they can still understand that animal cruelty while NOT playing a video game results in jail time.

Oh and for the icing on the cake, even if the events in game WERE actually real, it STILL wouldn't be animal cruelty because those dogs are attacking YOU and trying to KILL YOU. You are only defending yourself.

P.S. Even if your argument had substantive merit, calling yourself "UltraBlumpkin" robs your posts of any possibility of being taken seriously.
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.

And what the hell does my name have to do with it? Your name, i assume, is from the song by Hank Williams, or you just made it up. Either way, it gives you no credit to banter about video games. Hank Williams is as close to video games as Paris Hilton is to fine china. THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON.
 

ARM02

New member
Mar 3, 2009
42
0
0
Keane Ng said:
Bored Tomatoe said:
This is just hurting the animal rights cause and giving teens a bad name as overreactive hippies. *Sigh* It is a sad day to be an American teenager.
Isn't every day a sad day to be an American teen?
Zinggg

A mere 100 signitures? Clearly just a stunt for attention...which we are granting -_-
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.
I'm not finding any studies related to what you mention here. Besides, it's your argument, you get to provide the facts to back it up.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,916
0
0
Wolves are vile creatures that prowl the forests killing other animals to benefit themselves. This is why people don't care when they are killed as opposed to dogs.

However, wild dogs do the same exact thing as wolves so I think it's more about you killing a domesticated animal rather than a wild one.

However the dogs in Call of Duty are trying to rip your face off.

Never mind, I don't know why people care so much about killing a pile of pixels that takes the form of a dog.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
paulgruberman said:
UltraBlumpkin said:
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.
I'm not finding any studies related to what you mention here. Besides, it's your argument, you get to provide the facts to back it up.
Do mutated/Evil animals count? Then judging by almost 9 years of playing Diablo 2 and killing tons of frogs/snakes/birds/hedgehogs, I should've been convicted for massive zoocide.
 

UltraBlumpkin

New member
Aug 1, 2008
138
0
0
Abedeus said:
paulgruberman said:
UltraBlumpkin said:
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.
I'm not finding any studies related to what you mention here. Besides, it's your argument, you get to provide the facts to back it up.
Do mutated/Evil animals count? Then judging by almost 9 years of playing Diablo 2 and killing tons of frogs/snakes/birds/hedgehogs, I should've been convicted for massive zoocide.
I don't know about that, have you thought about killing any mutated seabass lately?
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
kawligia said:
UltraBlumpkin said:
Well when you bought the game, were you expecting to be shooting soldiers or dogs? This is a mainstream game that will have a lot of kids and adults playing through it. I don't know of any parents that want to teach their kids to shoot dogs, or that it is somehow justifiable. I don't blame the group for being upset about it, there is nothing shameful in protecting animal rights, even virtual ones.

Furthermore, criticizing them for speaking out against it, but not against the humans getting shot is a poor straw man argument. This is an animal rights group that is protesting the animal cruelty. Makes sense right? You don't criticize an AIDS researcher for not curing cancer, so why criticize an animal rights group for not protecting humans?
The fact that they are "virtual" as opposed to "actual" means precisely that they don't have rights...because they aren't real. If vitrual life forms have rights, they I guess the majority of people who have played "The Sims" would be either going to jail or getting sued for any number of things done to hurt the "virtual rights" of non-existent "Sims." Oh and I guess all those creatures in "Spore" should be granted protection under the endangered species act too.

They should be criticized because their argument has no merit whatsoever and they are exploiting raw sensationalism. Unlike you, the vast majority of the rest of the world is able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. For the few that can't they can still understand that animal cruelty while NOT playing a video game results in jail time.

Oh and for the icing on the cake, even if the events in game WERE actually real, it STILL wouldn't be animal cruelty because those dogs are attacking YOU and trying to KILL YOU. You are only defending yourself.

P.S. Even if your argument had substantive merit, calling yourself "UltraBlumpkin" robs your posts of any possibility of being taken seriously.
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.

And what the hell does my name have to do with it? Your name, i assume, is from the song by Hank Williams, or you just made it up. Either way, it gives you no credit to banter about video games. Hank Williams is as close to video games as Paris Hilton is to fine china. THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON.
Seriously QFT
 

Noone From Nowhere

New member
Feb 20, 2009
568
0
0
Fortunately for the gaming public at large, the Unintelligencia didn't get to FallOut 3 (yet) to tamper with its depiction of violence towards animals other than homo sapiens. I, for one, am grateful to still have the chance to settle up with 'Man's Best Friend/Worst Enemy' the same way that I deal with Man himself in-game up-close-and-personal with the business end of a combat shotgun or auto-axe in the face.
Maybe if TreyArch had made them anthropomorphic wolf-men (maybe produced in some Nazi 'Super Science' experiment or occult ceremony) like canine (caNein?) versions of the 'Catzis' from Maus, then everyone would have been fine so long as they don't behave too 'adult' in a non-violent manner.
"Make War, Not Love" and all that rot.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
One has to wonder if those teenagers would shoot a dog if it was tearing out THEIR throat.

I vote no.
 

Giftmacher

New member
Jul 22, 2008
137
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.
I so want to see this paper, full reference please.

Gift.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
man-man said:
Even 'big' dogs are outmatched by wolves, because we've been breeding them for thousands of years to be a manageable size. Also been breeding them to be less aggressive, more communicative with humans, more useful to us.
Quite a lot of big dogs are bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than wolves, because there are breeds of dog we have specifically tailored for those qualities. The average wild wolf would be about the size of a German Shepherd, and much smaller than something like a Rottweiler.

Wolves in real life (not fiction) aren't actually very aggressive at all, they'll generally avoid contact with humans unless they're very hungry (well fed wolves will even abandon a kill if humans approach, whereas hungrier ones may stay to defend it), and they very rarely make unprovoked attacks unless infected with rabies.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
On topic: I certainly know that nothing drew my ire in Fable 2 like hurting my dog. Anything else was fine, the doggie was off limits, and usually led to some sport being had with the bastard wot did it.
 

Flishiz

New member
Feb 11, 2009
882
0
0
It's the internet's fault. Now that the actual selective editing and screening of newspapers and magazines is obsolete, any jackass can flail an idea on the web. The worst part is that people will actually listen to it >.>
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Abedeus said:
paulgruberman said:
UltraBlumpkin said:
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.
I'm not finding any studies related to what you mention here. Besides, it's your argument, you get to provide the facts to back it up.
Do mutated/Evil animals count? Then judging by almost 9 years of playing Diablo 2 and killing tons of frogs/snakes/birds/hedgehogs, I should've been convicted for massive zoocide.
I don't know about that, have you thought about killing any mutated seabass lately?

No, but I think I wouldn't mind killing a giant beetle that sparks when stricken.

...Wait, I would mind. Actually, I'd let PETA take care of him. Hehehheh.
 

kilarabbbit

New member
Mar 27, 2009
3
0
0
UltraBlumpkin:

Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.

And what the hell does my name have to do with it? Your name, i assume, is from the song by Hank Williams, or you just made it up. Either way, it gives you no credit to banter about video games. Hank Williams is as close to video games as Paris Hilton is to fine china. THEY HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For staters i have never killed .3 of a dog...so ha. but i have killed TONS! of dogs in COD5 and i have never thought of killing my dog so maybe we are not all as crazy as you who would kill a real dog if you killed a few virtual dogs...crazy man!

p.s. and i dont know to do that thing where it copys an other persons comeent. Im sure it is really easy to d and someone will want to take the opportunity to try to show they know something and for that person...get over it!
 

Ezzay

New member
Feb 28, 2009
311
0
0
kilarabbbit said:
p.s. and i dont know to do that thing where it copys an other persons comeent. Im sure it is really easy to d and someone will want to take the opportunity to try to show they know something and for that person...get over it!
Instead of hitting reply, click Quote.
 

Rigs83

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,932
0
0
Dogs are literally mentally retarded dwarfed wolves bred to labor for humans. I like dogs but I understand that fact and although I do not wish them to suffer I don't stay awake at night worrying about real ones let alone virtual ones. I live in Massachusetts and nearly everyone with money in Massachusetts are either assholes or are wishing they had stayed out west and hope to go back before they become assholes.
 

stainlessgamer

New member
Mar 27, 2009
1
0
0
UltraBlumpkin said:
Obviously you haven't done your research. Several notable scientists from many esteemed universities show that for every 8.3 virtual animals killed in a game, that player will think of killing 1 real one. If you would take the time to google it, you would save yourself from ignorance.
you put way to much into believing what a few "scientists" say. Fact is thats just a ratio they gave after yet another one of they're "studies". If you look at things like that 15yrs ago, they said butter was bad for you, and to use margerine, 10yrs ago they said magerine was bad and to go back to butter. Now they say both are bad and use the "light" versions of both.

The fact is everyone will think about it regaurdless of doing it in a game. Just like how EVERYONE contemplates hurting someone that has either made them mad or they don't like. They never learned how to "think" about something from a game. It's also been scientifically proven that all of our actions and thoughts can be traced back to our human nature.

This is just another example of some crying babies who hate they're own existence, claiming that by doing something in a video game makes you more likely to attempt it in real life. Fact is if you can't tell the difference between the 2, then you need professional help. I myself have played hours upon hours of games like GTA, but you don't see me going out to kill a hooker. Matter of fact, if the "scientific studies" were right, then the numbers wouldn't be changing each year, and we would all, personally know someone who has committed murder recently. If you do, then I'm sorry for you, but I highly doubt playing a video game, helped contribute to they're actions. Like I said before, if it somehow did, then that person needed help, long before they started playing video games.

Charles Mason didn't become the psychopath he was by playing pong!!
 

dtthelegend

New member
Oct 19, 2008
105
0
0
if you dont like to kills dogs in the game, you have the option of being mauled to death by them.

if you dont like that either, you dont have to PLAY the game.