*snipped away for length*
I didn't think my point was so difficult to understand. It's the difference between Capcom saying "We know you're worried about this game, and you're an idiot to do so" and "We know you're worried about this game, but you really don't have to be and here's why." One aggravates the situation, whilst the other calms it down, but at no point does Capcom actually change the game.
I kind of stand by the argument of "Just because it can be asked doesn't mean it deserves an answer."
The reason you shouldn't take people seriously when they say something absurd is because all you do is promote the absurdity.
If I ran around saying video games were the leading cause of AIDS in the world I'm fairly sure getting that sort of response from Capcom would not warrant such a response from you defending my view.
If you took time out of your day to calmly explain to every nutjob why their views are valid and respectful (however misguided) you'd never have a single second to your day.
Sometimes when someone says the only reasonable thing to do is cut off the tip of your wang you just have to stop and say "No. That is stupid and you should feel bad."
I'm all for differing points of view, it makes the world wonderful, however when your views are rooted in absolute ludicrousness there is little room to work.
I know quoting a person who is just reading a line from their script isn't going to really help my case but I do find it to be fairly valid and I find him to be a pretty entertaining actor:
I'm sure at this point gaming companies are just sick and tired of the same recycled argument that has absolutely no solid foundation in reality. I'd be much more open to it if it weren't for spending two straight years in a field (psychology) that seems to provide almost unanimous evidence against the idea that video games are the cause of any real world (psychological) problems.
You need to set the bar high for folks, don't let them be a dumb ass, the less you caudal folks the more you'll find people exceeding all your wildest expectations.
I just get disheartened when we defend something that if released in modern day would be scoffed at almost unanimously. Unless I'm the only one that notices nearly all modern day prophets being put in psychiatric wards or utterly ignored.
If you honestly believe that calm conversation is effective at all with ideologues I imagine you've never watched a debate on fox news.
PS. I'm not trying to argue that religion is bad. I'm just saying it isn't reasonable. Perhaps I'm abusing the word reasonable. But I find it difficult to say that it is reasonable without accepting that all other possible concepts are equally reasonable (since you can just as easily devise any of an infinitely many concepts that cannot be proven, dis proven, or tested in any way). I just think people think that there is something inherently wrong with unreasonable thought processes. Perhaps because deep down we all want everything to make sense and silliness by design can't. Cognitive Dissonance perhaps? I dunno.