I would really like to get into the nine different kinds of irony and symbolism that Jim seems to be working with, but I can't get over how much it looks like he's getting a BJ during the first few frames of that video.
Jim & Yahtzee's Rhymedown Spectacular: Games, Games, Everywhere.
- Thread starter Jim And Yahtzee
- Start date
If you're in America, then the 2nd amendment automatically deals with such issues i.e. limiting of acquiring arms is illegal as per the Constitution. No more needs to be said about that.mike1921 said:
As for the car comment, why not lower the speed limit to 15mph? That way, less people would die in traffic related accidents. Even more interesting, as arriving on time is not a right given by the Constitution but merely a luxury, this should be relatively easy to do.
The bold part is your problem, tasers are not what you would call reliable. Watch any video where an officer is trying to subdue a suspect using a taser. One hand aiming the taser, the other on his sidearm. In many situations where he is not, his life is at risk. I've seen officers get shot because they thought the taser was going to work. Instead, the suspect just shakes it off or is at least able to shoot. Pepper spray is no different, if you eat enough spicy food (not crazy amounts, just on a regular basis) you're practically immune to it.Jaden Kazega said:
If you want a weapon that is legal and sure to defend you, get a knife. In almost any CQ situation (4-5 meters) a person with a knife can inflict life threatening injury to even a person armed with a gun
Jim is totally wrong. It's different when I buy the exact same game with different skins, because indie is exempt from logic!
Well, it's no more glib than the indication that people believe guns are the cause of violence.
And, of course, the slippery slope it follows for comedic effect.
It probably doesn't help that it points out the stupidity of the stance taken by one of the biggest gun lobbies in America. That is to say, "these shootings are out of hand and have to stop....LET'S BAN VIDEO GAMES!"
That's bound to snag some emotions.
And possibly confusing.Thunderous Cacophony said:
That they are sentient artifacts from the pits of Hell manufactured by dark incantations taught to us by creatures from the 13th dimension?Adam Jensen said:
I agree. Shootings are just as likely to happen with video games. Ideas are just as lethal as bullets, and if we just showed pictures to people, we'd have the same end result. There is a direct correlation between games/books and violence, and the nirvana fallacy is a strong argument in favour of firearms.RJ 17 said:Yeah yeah, I'll bight. Guns are no more to blame than games, movies, books, pictures, and spoken word. Crazy people will do crazy things whether or not they have a gun to do them with.
Political differences aside, I still enjoyed both poems, though the meter in Jim's seemed a bit off.
Well, it's no more glib than the indication that people believe guns are the cause of violence.
Though neither are the reason for Yahtzee's segment today. Not that I disagree, it just seems weird to be even having this discussion when the core of the mockery here is the notion that certain bodies have effectively said "these shootings are out of hand and have to stop....LET'S BAN VIDEO GAMES!"Legion said:
And, of course, the slippery slope it follows for comedic effect.
Guns are srs business and the simple implication that guns might be a problem is such to trigger a rote response in most 'Murricans.Deshin said:
It probably doesn't help that it points out the stupidity of the stance taken by one of the biggest gun lobbies in America. That is to say, "these shootings are out of hand and have to stop....LET'S BAN VIDEO GAMES!"
That's bound to snag some emotions.
Somehow, this thread has made me think about school.
And how language classes could be improved by choosing interesting literature and such rather than always falling back on the classics for your respective country. Not saying the classics are bad, but they're maybe not the best thing to make kids read, and be enthusiastic about it.
Or at least diversify it a bit. As a lot of the classics in my own language, and English, tend to be rather depressive stories(for example, "A Dollhouse" by H. Ibsen.)
Annyway...
Just want to throw in one comment about the gun debate(which was mentioned a few times before):
Guns themselves don't cause violence, no.
But they make the consequences of it much more severe.
And how language classes could be improved by choosing interesting literature and such rather than always falling back on the classics for your respective country. Not saying the classics are bad, but they're maybe not the best thing to make kids read, and be enthusiastic about it.
Or at least diversify it a bit. As a lot of the classics in my own language, and English, tend to be rather depressive stories(for example, "A Dollhouse" by H. Ibsen.)
Annyway...
Just want to throw in one comment about the gun debate(which was mentioned a few times before):
Guns themselves don't cause violence, no.
But they make the consequences of it much more severe.
I think it's a great book that for some reason almost everyone reads wrong. When I read it I thought it was a clear example of an unreliable narrator - a protagonist who's surrounded by well-meaning people who want to do right by him and who keeps rejecting them all. But I appear to be in the minority and everyone else seems to think he's an insightful teenager who really is seeing through everyone else's phoniness.Desert Punk said:
So, is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment allows anyone to buy a nuclear missile?furai47 said:
I'm honestly curious just how broad you (and other pro-gun right advoctes) are willing to stretch this bit of logic.
Thirded. What a whiney little douche for a protagonist. My English teacher for senior year said that book inspired the assassination of John Lennon, but I think that guy would have done it regardless. You can't blame anything but the crazy people for their actions.RJ 17 said:
Wait, I thought all the members of Green Day were from Berkeley, CA? I live near there, and there's a huge fan following throughout Alameda County.Certainly would fit with the pretentiousness of indie games. Green Day moves to America so they can make it big as a rock band and then spend all their time bitching about America.
OT: I liked Jim's poem because it employed more subtlety and FINALLY used irony correctly. I can see why most "Indie" devs make their games look like the stuff from their youth, because it's more familiar and way easier to program yourself or with a small team than what AAA games require. As for Yahtzee's poem, it hits home, because there are people blaming guns themselves for violence and those who blame popular media for inspiring it, but they're both wrong. it's the crazy idiots who are to blame, and that's what needs changing.
mmm tangfastic.
I think Yahtzee's was wasted on some though, while it is about guns it's not necessarily only about guns, parallels can be drawn to DRM and other rubbish in gaming and a lot of other subject areas.
With Jim's it reminds me of a part in Chasing Amy where a character says that while many people want to think they're being creative, unique and new in the bedroom, everything they come up with has been done by many many other people already usually hundreds of years before too. Well words to that effect.
I think Yahtzee's was wasted on some though, while it is about guns it's not necessarily only about guns, parallels can be drawn to DRM and other rubbish in gaming and a lot of other subject areas.
With Jim's it reminds me of a part in Chasing Amy where a character says that while many people want to think they're being creative, unique and new in the bedroom, everything they come up with has been done by many many other people already usually hundreds of years before too. Well words to that effect.
...And if I could get a car at a car show without having to have a license, take both a written and a competency test, renew my car's registration every year, and periodically prove that I was still competent to drive a car, there would probably be a lot more auto deaths.
Tangentially, I have been in places in large cities where it was literally impossible to legally travel more than about four blocks without access to a motor vehicle. I have never been in a city where basic functional life was impossible without a gun.
I know there are a great many responsible gun owners who care intensely about gun safety, don't use or store their weapons irresponsibly, and would be horrified at the idea of pointing one at a human being.
Unfortunately, in my country, they have the same rights as the people who fire their guns into the air at every holiday celebration, leave loaded weapons where children can get them, and/or are itching for an opportunity to show how macho and self-reliant they are to imaginary violent criminals.
Guns don't cause violence, but it takes a powerful level of delusion to pretend they don't make violence a hell of a lot easier. The utter inability of some to contemplate anything that "infringes on their rights", no matter the cost, is kind of sickening.
Tangentially, I have been in places in large cities where it was literally impossible to legally travel more than about four blocks without access to a motor vehicle. I have never been in a city where basic functional life was impossible without a gun.
I know there are a great many responsible gun owners who care intensely about gun safety, don't use or store their weapons irresponsibly, and would be horrified at the idea of pointing one at a human being.
Unfortunately, in my country, they have the same rights as the people who fire their guns into the air at every holiday celebration, leave loaded weapons where children can get them, and/or are itching for an opportunity to show how macho and self-reliant they are to imaginary violent criminals.
Guns don't cause violence, but it takes a powerful level of delusion to pretend they don't make violence a hell of a lot easier. The utter inability of some to contemplate anything that "infringes on their rights", no matter the cost, is kind of sickening.
Based on the rest of your comment I'm not sure what country you live in, but in the US you can do all those things without a driver's license, and you don't need to register your car to own it. In the US you only need a license to drive on public roads, and you only need to register your car if you want to take it on public roads.Callate said:
If you want to buy a car and only drive it on private property, and transport the car from place to place on a trailer, you can do so without the government's permission. With enough resources, you can let your 14-year-old kid drive an unregistered home-built car at 200mph on your land.
No, that's hyperbole that nobody actually advocates.Mahoshonen said:
In the most common reading of the Second Amendment, it allows private citizens to acquire personal weapons that are useful for defense. Rifles, including mid-sized semi-auto rifles like the AR-15, are well-suited for this purpose.
Just because someone has a gun does not automatically mean they're going to shoot a human with it. In fact, the vast majority of people who own guns have absolutely no intention of using it on a human. You were indeed right in saying that a gun is just a tool, what that tool does is dependent entirely on the person that's using it. A hunter who owns a gun has no intention of using it on a human being, they intend to use it to hunt animals. A home owner who has a gun for home/personal defense has no intention of using it on a human being, to have such an intent would mean that they intend for their home to be invaded thereby justifying their use of a gun on a person.ExtraDebit said:Except that guns is a tool that empowers, there's a difference between mad with power and mad without power. A mad man with the power of a gun or to launch a nuke is much more dangerous than one without.RJ 17 said:Yeah yeah, I'll bight. Guns are no more to blame than games, movies, books, pictures, and spoken word. Crazy people will do crazy things whether or not they have a gun to do them with.
Political differences aside, I still enjoyed both poems, though the meter in Jim's seemed a bit off.
Both guns and games are two different perspective taking on the same situation. One claims that we should take away things that make people mad and one claims that we should take away power for mad people to minimize damage. However, taking away power from the mad is a much more sound solution while weather games make people mad is still indebate.
As I pointed out to someone else, we live in an age where people can look up instructions on how to build a bomb on the internet at their local library. Crazy people will always do crazy things, no matter what you take away from them. So let's follow the poem's line of logic and start with banning guns. With no more guns, people start building bombs. With all things that could be used to build bombs banned (which would be quite a feat), some madman starts mowing people down with his car. With all cars banned, some psycho goes on a stabbing spree at a college (already happened). With all knives banned, some nut job goes around clocking people in the back of the head with a hammer. With all hammers banned...etc.
The bottom line is, as I said, there are crazy people out there. The gun didn't make them crazy - just as a game didn't make them crazy - they were crazy before they even had the gun in their hand. Crazy people are going to find ways to do crazy things regardless of what you take away from them.
So, is your opinion that medical research is completely fine to be done on infants rather than lab rats? Rifles and nuclear missiles are about in the same relationship as those two and frankly, if you can't distinguish a bomb that upon detonation kills thousands (if detonated above a residential area) and a gun that, unless you have people standing in line or are lucky with ricochet, kills one person at a time you are not suited to have a conversation about gun rights.Mahoshonen said:
I am completely fine with the US government going through the required process (Included with every order of the US Constitution, get yours today!) of adding an amendment to regulate guns and arms, but until such time as they do exactly that, limiting magazine sizes, bullets, armour, pistol grips, stocks and any and all plastic bits that make a gun look scary is illegal. Full stop.
There are already restrictions on owning tanks, B17 bombers, artillery stations and the like, so don't pretend "the right to bear arms" means you can carry an intergalactic planet vaporiser around without the necessary paperwork.