Crying Wolf

[Andy Chalk]

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

 

[sirdanrhodes]

D-D-D-D-DOUBLE POST!

Sorry, will read it, but it had to be done.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

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]

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?

 

[Yog Sothoth]

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]

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]

Awww, poor doggies...this protest is useless.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ShadowKirby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UltraBlumpkin]

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]

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]

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.