Jack Thompson Thread #2

[Some Lazy Dr]

"Okay folks, here it is. The thread to discuss everything Thompson is here. However, GP doesn't want any harrasment and/or personal attacks. Discuss Thompson, but keep everything civil. Thanks."

Also, make sure you are polite. I know this guy isn't exactly friendly even when you send him flowers, perhaps sincerity will change his mind.

Discuss:
Why does this guy hate video games so much?
Why does he feel that he needs to "save" children from video games?
Why does he feel there is consecutive evidence that video games are bad?
Is there a generational gap between the people born before 1980 and the ones after? (< 1980 for some odd reason feels too old for video games, I just don't understand that. If your not one of them, kudos.)

Oh, by the way rules:

If you are Jack Thompson or anyone (don't be trollish).

Be civil.
Be kind.
Be convincing!
No fake evidence!
No flame wars!
No whining!
No slapping.

Et cetera. Just have a civil, casual debate. If any administrator or moderator decides to close this thread before it is too long, I will not create another one.

[MaskedPixelante]

All's quiet on the Jack Thompson front... a little TOO quiet if you ask me.

[kurisu7885]

All's quiet on the Jack Thompson front... a little TOO quiet if you ask me.
Agreed, except in that case where he called a police office and asked if they had found video games in the home of someone who was arrested for murder.
Just something I heard.

[Thefremen]

Agreed, except in that case where he called a police office and asked if they had found video games in the home of someone who was arrested for murder.
Just something I heard.

That sounds right. He tries to connect everything wrong in the world with video games.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

Agreed, except in that case where he called a police office and asked if they had found video games in the home of someone who was arrested for murder.
Just something I heard.

I wonder if they hung up on him....

[Grahamr]

"Okay folks, here it is. The thread to discuss everything Thompson is here. However, GP doesn't want any harrasment and/or personal attacks. Discuss Thompson, but keep everything civil. Thanks."

Also, make sure you are polite. I know this guy isn't exactly friendly even when you send him flowers, perhaps sincerity will change his mind.

Discuss:
Why does this guy hate video games so much?
Why does he feel that he needs to "save" children from video games?
Why does he feel there is consecutive evidence that video games are bad?
Is there a generational gap between the people born before 1980 and the ones after? (< 1980 for some odd reason feels too old for video games, I just don't understand that. If your not one of them, kudos.)

Oh, by the way rules:

If you are Jack Thompson or anyone (don't be trollish).

Be civil.
Be kind.
Be convincing!
No fake evidence!
No flame wars!
No whining!
No slapping.

Et cetera. Just have a civil, casual debate. If any administrator or moderator decides to close this thread before it is too long, I will not create another one.

Your 13, right? Im impressed, your very mature for your age. most young teens on the Inet just post things like "Omg ur dum suk mai dik". I'm 15, BTW.

To me, JT just seems like an Ultraconservative father with a law degree gone wrong, He can even be polite once in a blue moon. But his ego and determination, and paranoia drive him to do very offensive things, and he can even go so far off the edge as to show human disregard....

The New mexico case and the furor over the gamer who commit suicide come to mind.

Did i mention he also seems to be a skilled manipulator, at least to people within his prefrances?

[TrentHowell]

um not much to say except that the Thompson Wiki page has been vandalized......again.

[Thefremen]

I wonder if they hung up on him....

They should. I heard the reason the Iraq war went so badly is he called up Rummy early on and said the troop levels would be just fine so long as he made sure they didn't have ps2s.

[Cecil475]

"Okay folks, here it is. The thread to discuss everything Thompson is here. However, GP doesn't want any harrasment and/or personal attacks. Discuss Thompson, but keep everything civil. Thanks."

Also, make sure you are polite. I know this guy isn't exactly friendly even when you send him flowers, perhaps sincerity will change his mind.

Discuss:
Why does this guy hate video games so much?
Why does he feel that he needs to "save" children from video games?
Why does he feel there is consecutive evidence that video games are bad?
Is there a generational gap between the people born before 1980 and the ones after? (< 1980 for some odd reason feels too old for video games, I just don't understand that. If your not one of them, kudos.)

Oh, by the way rules:

If you are Jack Thompson or anyone (don't be trollish).

Be civil.
Be kind.
Be convincing!
No fake evidence!
No flame wars!
No whining!
No slapping.

Et cetera. Just have a civil, casual debate. If any administrator or moderator decides to close this thread before it is too long, I will not create another one.

Awesome! My favorite thread on the person that I hate the most to date returns. If Jack is reading this It will most likely will be from a public Internet terminal. (like an Library or a hotpoint) and would be quiet and not post (so he does not have to find another computer.) I really don't think he can post without harrassing others.

But Yeah I agree that he's been too quiet lately. Then something happens and he'll seem to come out of the woodwork.

- Warren Lewis
(This of course puts Real Estate devloper Gordon Grubb in 2nd place.)

[Anjin-San]

....there's a difference between waiting in the wings and stagnation, folks.

[kurisu7885]

um not much to say except that the Thompson Wiki page has been vandalized......again.

How has it been vandalized? Did he try to give himself godlike praise again?

[Cecil475]

How has it been vandalized? Did he try to give himself godlike praise again?

Maybe. havent read it myself

edit - Nevermind I found it part of the header reads:


JACK THOMPSONS A DOUCHE BAG.

Thank you for your time.

- Warren Lewis

[Cecil475]

Also check out below on Sourced and about:

Sourced
...Don't lecture me about how I'm somehow akin to Hitler. Gamers are akin to the Hitler Youth. Pixelantes are vigilantes. You put threats ahead of arguments, extortion ahead of enlightenment.
You all are the new book burners. Heil PS2! Heil Halo! Heil GTA!
Put down the controllers and get a life, you lost souls. Jack Thompson.
GamePolitics

"I have just instructed all of my... experts in the Alabama wrongful death case, all of whom have testified before Congress about the need for your kind of law, to have NOTHING whatsoever to do with your litigation in Louisiana unless I approve it... Lives are at stake, while your Mr. Foti does press conferences on Hurricane Katrina... "
(http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/349747.html#cutid1)

About
"Jack actually just called and screamed at me for a couple minutes. He said if I email him again I will 'regret it'. What a violent man." - Mike Krahulic
"I once E-mailed Jack, about a school project mind you, trying to be serious and get a solid opinion, i metioned i was a gamer, which was relevant to the subject, but when he replied, he said that he was surprised i could be in school since my IQ was so low. Hmm, to bad i have an IQ of 163." -David Prah
People usually become dumber when they hear one of Jack Thompson's comments. Likely cure is Jack Thompson to be featured in a fighting game as a playable character.

Edit: and this at the bottom:

"Without ever having seen or played the game himself, Thompson has called Bully a ‘Columbine simulator’ and sought a ban."
Thompson thinks kissing between males is an act of homosexuality despite I Thessalonians 5:26 ("Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.")
Retrieved from "http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29"

Edit part Deux:

This is from his wikiquote sorry

- Warren Lewis

[kurisu7885]

Also check out below on Sourced and about:



Edit: and this at the bottom:



Edit part Deux:

This is from his wikiquote sorry

- Warren Lewis
Sadest part is, they're all true.

[nightwng2000]

Still nothing new since the 8th of last month on that oh so wonderful case that John Bruce nearly threw a tantrum at when the judge recused himself because he was filing a Bar complaint.

Doesn't appear to be a new judge assigned yet.

http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/docketinfo.asp?pCase_Year=2006&pCase_Seq=16311&pCase_Code=CA&pCase_Loc=01&id=AAAA8tAAHAAAj/RAAT

[kurisu7885]

Still nothing new since the 8th of last month on that oh so wonderful case that John Bruce nearly threw a tantrum at when the judge recused himself because he was filing a Bar complaint.

Doesn't appear to be a new judge assigned yet.

http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/civil/docketinfo.asp?pCase_Year=2006&pCase_Seq=16311&pCase_Code=CA&pCase_Loc=01&id=AAAA8tAAHAAAj/RAAT

Might be part of the reason Thompson wants to run for judge, so he can give what he deems the right decision.

[MaskedPixelante]

ahh, what Jack deems the right decision.

I get this VERY sneaking suspiscion that Jack will try and sue CyberConnect2 for making a game that puts people in comas. Why? Because the man doesn't care for facts, and would probably overlook the fact it's a plot device in .hack

[TrentHowell]

ahh, what Jack deems the right decision.

I get this VERY sneaking suspiscion that Jack will try and sue CyberConnect2 for making a game that puts people in comas. Why? Because the man doesn't care for facts, and would probably overlook the fact it's a plot device in .hack

That would be the last thing attacked if anyone EVER decided to go after .hack. First thing they'd go after would be .hack//GIFT that came with the DVD in the 4th game. Nudity abound XD

[MaskedPixelante]

True, but it's anime, not an actual game.

[TrentHowell]

the thing is though, is it was packaged with the game and can only be obtained if you buy the game and if your any kind of .hack fan, which is almost a requirement for playing all 4 games, your going to watch the anime.

[Cecil475]

True, but it's anime, not an actual game.

And it isn't Take Two/Rockstar

- Warren Lewis

[TrentHowell]

And it isn't Take Two/Rockstar

- Warren Lewis

ah yes cannot ignore that fact. Tbh i dont remember a time when Jack didnt attack TT/R* when he started his video game crusade

[Tim Bickley]

Oh dear...this could almost be a parody piece - Jack has taken a break from his crusade against video games to attack...christmas tree decorations (http://www.local6.com/news/10479799/detail.html).

Words fail me.

[Michael James Nock]

Dried frog pill time, anyone?

[Dagrak]

*I never thought I would say these words* In his defence it is an afront to his and their religion I can see why he's speaking out against it. If they were insulting a tradition I believed in to that degree I'm sure I'd complain. Of course, I can't actually see what crime is being commited here unless these objects are being sold in supermarkets along with all the other kiddy friendly stuff.

Still, at least its not games this time. I say we encourage him and maybe he'll leave us alone, oh look! A flying Pig!

[Tim Bickley]

On the picture I can see two elves, rudolph and a snowman - none of those are explicitly christian. If they had a naked Jesus or something then I'd understand it causing offense - these are no different to the rude ornaments you can buy at seaside shops (at least here in the UK, I realise that the US is rather puritan...but this is rediculous).

[Dagrak]

On the picture I can see two elves, rudolph and a snowman - none of those are explicitly christian. If they had a naked Jesus or something then I'd understand it causing offense - these are no different to the rude ornaments you can buy at seaside shops (at least here in the UK, I realise that the US is rather puritan...but this is rediculous).

Hmm good point, I guess its just that they don't want anything adult appearing that is based on a holiday that is based on their religion of which its celebration date is based on another holiday which is based...I'm gonna stop now my brain is bleeding

[beemoh]

Hmm good point, I guess its just that they don't want anything adult appearing that is based on a holiday that is based on their religion of which its celebration date is based on another holiday which is based...I'm gonna stop now my brain is bleeding

I tried thinking about it, and came up with nullity.

[kurisu7885]

Hmm good point, I guess its just that they don't want anything adult appearing that is based on a holiday that is based on their religion of which its celebration date is based on another holiday which is based...I'm gonna stop now my brain is bleeding

Christmas has origins as a pagan holiday anyway, so their argument still has little to no credibility. It seems as though Jack just wants to win one thing as an ego boost and this seems like an easy target.

[TrentHowell]

I guess none of those people have ever walked into Spencers before either. If they think the ornaments are bad then woah, walk into a spencers one time you'll see alot of similar things.

[kurisu7885]

I guess none of those people have ever walked into Spencers before either. If they think the ornaments are bad then woah, walk into a spencers one time you'll see alot of similar things.

Agreed. My parents have taken me into Spencer since I was a kid, and I knew what was ok to look at and what wasn't, at least my parents trusted me to make a smart decision based on age.

[Dagrak]

Agreed. My parents have taken me into Spencer since I was a kid, and I knew what was ok to look at and what wasn't, at least my parents trusted me to make a smart decision based on age.

You'll have to excuse my naivity but what is Spencers? The only info I can find is that its a department store in British Columbia.

[kurisu7885]

You'll have to excuse my naivity but what is Spencers? The only info I can find is that its a department store in British Columbia.

It's a chain of stores in the US, mostly in malls. They deal in stuff such as rock memorabilia[SP?] such as a 1000 dollar replica of Gene Simmons' guitar, blacklight posters, motion lamps, gag gifts, desktop toys, and a good amount of adult themed stuff

http://www.spencersonline.com/

Such as the pole dancing kit on the front page.

[Grahamr]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule

This writer has been saying for seven years that violent video games can be "murder simulators" that incite as well as train some obsessive teen players to be violent.

I've been on 60 Minutes and in Reader's Digest this year explaining how an Alabama teen, with no criminal record, shot two policemen and a dispatcher in their heads and fled in a police car--a scenario he rehearsed for hundreds of hours on Take-Two/Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto video games.

I have sat with boys in jail cells, their lives over because of murder convictions, after they, with no history of violence, have killed innocents while in a dreamlike state. Said one cop who investigated such a murder in Grand Rapids, Michigan: "The killing was like an extension of the game."

The video game industry, through its lawyers, its spokesmen, and its head lobbyist, Doug Lowenstein, the president of the Entertainment Software Association, all say it is utter nonsense to suggest that what is dumped into a kid's head hour after hour, day after day, year after year, could possibly have behavioral consequences. Cigarette ads can persuade kids to smoke, but interactive simulators in which these same kids punch, hack, bludgeon, and maim affect not a wit their attitudes and behaviors, notwithstanding the findings of the American Psychological Association, published in August 2005.

The video game industry says Sticks and stones can break my bones, but games can never hurt me. Fine. I have a modest proposal for the video game industry. I'll write a check for $10,000 to the favorite charity of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc's chairman, Paul Eibeler - a man Bernard Goldberg ranks as #43 in his book 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America - if any video game company will create, manufacture, distribute, and sell a video game in 2006 like the following:

Osaki Kim is the father of a high school boy beaten to death with a baseball bat by a 14-year-old gamer. The killer obsessively played a violent video game in which one of the favored ways of killing is with a bat. The opening scene, before the interactive game play begins, is the Los Angeles courtroom in which the killer is sentenced "only" to life in prison after the judge and the jury have heard experts explain the connection between the game and the murder.

Osaki Kim (O.K.) exits the courtroom swearing revenge upon the video game industry whom he is convinced contributed to his son's murder. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay" he says. And boy, is O.K. not kidding.

O.K. is provided in his virtual reality playpen a panoply of weapons: machetes, Uzis, revolvers, shotguns, sniper rifles, Molotov cocktails, you name it. Even baseball bats. Especially baseball bats.

O.K. first hops a plane from LAX to New York to reach the Long Island home of the CEO of the company (Take This) that made the murder simulator on which his son's killer trained. O.K. gets "justice" by taking out this female CEO, whose name is Paula Eibel, along with her husband and kids. "An eye for an eye," says O.K., as he urinates onto the severed brain stems of the Eibel family victims, just as you do on the decapitated cops in the real video game Postal2.

O.K. then works his way, methodically back to LA by car, but on his way makes a stop at the Philadelphia law firm of Blank, Stare and goes floor by floor to wipe out the lawyers who protect Take This in its wrongful death law suits. "So sue me" O.K. spits, with singer Jackson Brown's 1980's hit Lawyers in Love blaring.

With the FBI now after him, O.K. keeps moving westward, shooting up high-tech video arcades called GameWerks. "Game over," O.K. laughs.

Of course, O.K. makes the obligatory runs to virtual versions of brick and mortar retailers Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, and Wal-Mart to steal supplies and bludgeon store managers and cash register clerks. "You should have checked kids' IDs!"

O.K. pushes on to Los Angeles. He must get there by May 10, 2006. That is the beginning of "E3" -- the Electronic Entertainment Expo -- the Super Bowl of the video game industry. O.K. must get to E3 to massacre all the video game industry execs with one final, monstrously delicious rampage.

How about it, video game industry? I've got the check and you've got the tech. It's all a fantasy, right? No harm can come from such a game, right? Go ahead, video game moguls. Target yourselves as you target others. I dare you.

Jack Thompson is a Miami lawyer who has for 18 years been involved in efforts to stop the marketing of adult entertainment to minors.

Those were the days. I still remember the controversy that occured.

[kurisu7885]

Those were the days. I still remember the controversy that occured.

My guess is he got all up in arms about Penny Arcade donating the money because Jack was banking on the fact that the industry wouldn't make the game, and he might have known it was an unrealistic time frame, so eh figured, win win

[Boffo97]

My guess is he got all up in arms about Penny Arcade donating the money because Jack was banking on the fact that the industry wouldn't make the game, and he might have known it was an unrealistic time frame, so eh figured, win win
Well if he was THINKING and not just being a stopped clock right twice a day, his genius move was to say it needed to be in a brick and mortar store in that calendar year.

With how long a game takes from initial idea through development to store shelves these days, that deadline would have been hard to meet.

[kurisu7885]

Well if he was THINKING and not just being a stopped clock right twice a day, his genius move was to say it needed to be in a brick and mortar store in that calendar year.

With how long a game takes from initial idea through development to store shelves these days, that deadline would have been hard to meet.

It's still kinda moot now, since the guy who made I'm O.K. could have easily just started burning the game to disk and selling it himself, but Thompson looked for other reasons it didn't meet his specs. Maybe he didn't want the enemies to fight back or something

[Tim Bickley]

I think his final objection was that the charity had to be named by Paul Eibeler - and that would require Paul to a) dignify the proposal by publically aknowledging it and b) actually admit that Thompson exists. Thompson was after the latter - he really wants attention.

[MaskedPixelante]

when I first read that article about the ornaments, I thought the ornaments were of video game characters. I must say... I kind of like this new Jack, as he's not attacking video games. Of course, that feeling will subside if he goes back to attacking video games.

[Tim Bickley]

Whats to like about the new Jack? Hes getting worked up about something utterly irrelevant and trying to use legal strong-arming to force his point of view onto others. I bet that the letter he sent about the pornaments was virtually identical to the one he sent about Bully when he found "gay sex" in the game.

Same Jack, different target.

[PyroHazard]

Why the hell hasn't he gone after myspace yet? It would be the next logical step in a crusade, not some stupid gag gifts being sold at an equally gag gift store.

[Hannah]

Why the hell hasn't he gone after myspace yet? It would be the next logical step in a crusade, not some stupid gag gifts being sold at an equally gag gift store.

He's complained about it before, but it was more of a "SEE??? INTERWEB PEOPLE ARE EVIL!" kind of thing. I don't think he's ever gone beyond copying/pasting a few articles about MySpace pedophiles to random gamers.

[KN]

Someone send him to /b/.

[kurisu7885]

The CIA analogy was a nice touch.:)

[Runefire]

How do you know they are not? :)

[Michael James Nock]

uuurrrggg... Imagine what sort of life his son actually has. His dad has gone against music, films, and video games. What entertaiments left? (other than reading and sport)

[Anjin-San]

As Dennis originally said, let's not speculate as to what's going on with his family, yes? Also, I'd like to ask anyone posting here to use common sense and not beat a horse to death. Not implying anything, but these threads often are closed when it just runs it course and devolves into nonsense.

[Grahamr]

uuurrrggg... Imagine what sort of life his son actually has. His dad has gone against music, films, and video games. What entertaiments left? (other than reading and sport)


Not to perpetuate the subject, but his son plays videogames, and jt himself is a frank zappa fan.

I wish there could be a truce between JT and gamers.

[kurisu7885]

As Dennis originally said, let's not speculate as to what's going on with his family, yes? Also, I'd like to ask anyone posting here to use common sense and not beat a horse to death. Not implying anything, but these threads often are closed when it just runs it course and devolves into nonsense.

Jack himself as devolved into using utter nonsense, so it's hard for the thread to stay away.

[Beacon]

How do you know they are not? :)

Nah, they use a rotating lamp... or was that the Dai Li? (Avatar: the Last Earth Bender)
(How was that? I've been trying to work on my inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, because I've been told I'm not supposed to be able to do that.)

[Some Lazy Dr]

The CIA analogy was a nice touch.

Thank you. And if they were using video games, we would know about it. They've been trying for ages to make people go into a zombie-like state and follow orders, and they've failed. I hope.

Anyway, back on JT. I agree there should be a truce. Now, for Germany: please, please, please Germans: protest against violent video games being banned. Be active.

[Yukimura]

Of Fred Phelps, except it's anti game not anti gay.

I mean seriouslly, I wouldn't put it past him to make a GOD HATES GAMES website you know what I mean.

Off topic, but I now have a widescreen HD tv. Lemme tell you.

AMAZING!

Untill you've played in HD, you ain't seen nothing yet

[Some Lazy Dr]

Ya, those HD TV's are awesome! I have a near 720p hi-def TV on my monitor! It's flatscreen too!

Oh, and btw- Jack Thompson, it's time you play more Grand Theft Auto. If not, don't force other people not to (except your son until he's 18).

[Thefremen]

Not to perpetuate the subject, but his son plays videogames, and jt himself is a frank zappa fan.

I wish there could be a truce between JT and gamers.

JT loves Frank Zappa? So is Bush a fan of Rage Against the Machine? Did Hitler have a signed copy of everything Karl Marx wrote? I guess ann coulter is al franken's biggest fan....

Man that's weird.

[Kittie Rose]

Sorry, but there's absolutely no excuse for such blatant homophobia.

It's quite ironic that you can't describe the "moral difference" between heterosexual and homosexual relationships without going into reproduction; and thus, sex.

What a wanker.

[Grahamr]

JT loves Frank Zappa? So is Bush a fan of Rage Against the Machine? Did Hitler have a signed copy of everything Karl Marx wrote? I guess ann coulter is al franken's biggest fan....

Man that's weird.

*Points to rolling stone*

Their info, not mine.

[Some Lazy Dr]

He'd big a BIG fan of this video. So much a fan of this video, that his reaction will probably be the same of the video's.

BTW, I didn't create this video. Hella funny. I'll put it back up here, if I get mod permission.



You know, if someone created a similar video about me- I'd do what he'd do. Explode. Still, it's funny. Kinda like the Oprah "evil-witch" persona MadTV did.

[GamePolitics]

Lazy Dr...

let's try to tone down the JT rhetoric a bit...

My preference here is to address the issues, not the individual...

Thx

[kurisu7885]

Lazy Dr...

let's try to tone down the JT rhetoric a bit...

My preference here is to address the issues, not the individual...

Thx

Seconded. Let's talk about the issues instead.

[Yukimura]

For all the talk that goes on about violent games, it seems that they fail to notice many games that feature far more disturbing content then those games they chose to attack. For example, FEAR is a very violent game, feature great amounts of blood, gore, and violence, plus it incorperates a varitey of horroific imagery into it's story line. Yet, I saw not a single compliant about that games violence.

Another notable would be a game such as smackdown vs raw. Given the rather contentious relationship wrestling and censors have had in the past, See PTC vs WWF for more details, it strikes me as odd that no one ever suggested that wrestling games might lead to real wrestling violence. Certainly attempts were made in the past to link such things as backyard wrestling to it's televised cohort.

It just seems to prove, more and more, that this debate is failing apart now and as a result, Politicans are being forced to side with the industry rather then face them in court.

Jack thompson started this crusade, and I must admit, i find some dark twisted joy in knowing he lived long enough to watch it fall apart.

But I still have to wonder. If they reall were worried about game violence, why be so specifc?

Theres plenty of violence to go around. FEAR, Gears of War, you name it. Jack and his Followers make themselves out to be hypocrites by attacks one company or one series of games when so many games are violent anyway.

I swear, JT is like the fred phelps of the game world.

[kurisu7885]

For all the talk that goes on about violent games, it seems that they fail to notice many games that feature far more disturbing content then those games they chose to attack. For example, FEAR is a very violent game, feature great amounts of blood, gore, and violence, plus it incorperates a varitey of horroific imagery into it's story line. Yet, I saw not a single compliant about that games violence.

Another notable would be a game such as smackdown vs raw. Given the rather contentious relationship wrestling and censors have had in the past, See PTC vs WWF for more details, it strikes me as odd that no one ever suggested that wrestling games might lead to real wrestling violence. Certainly attempts were made in the past to link such things as backyard wrestling to it's televised cohort.

It just seems to prove, more and more, that this debate is failing apart now and as a result, Politicans are being forced to side with the industry rather then face them in court.

Jack thompson started this crusade, and I must admit, i find some dark twisted joy in knowing he lived long enough to watch it fall apart.

But I still have to wonder. If they reall were worried about game violence, why be so specifc?

Theres plenty of violence to go around. FEAR, Gears of War, you name it. Jack and his Followers make themselves out to be hypocrites by attacks one company or one series of games when so many games are violent anyway.

I swear, JT is like the fred phelps of the game world.

Another is example is how they attack the orignal Doom whjile seeming to ignore Doom 3. Doom 3 is infinitely more violent, has occult themesand at least minimal swearing.

[Yukimura]

Another is example is how they attack the orignal Doom whjile seeming to ignore Doom 3. Doom 3 is infinitely more violent, has occult themesand at least minimal swearing.


Forgot about that one! :)

Oh well, I'm having to much fun with Marvel ULtimate alliance right now to care.

Beware evil doers, i'm here to beat some ass!

:p

[beemoh]

For all the talk that goes on about violent games, it seems that they fail to notice many games that feature far more disturbing content then those games they chose to attack.

Rule Of Rose?

[kurisu7885]

Rule Of Rose?

Doom 3, American McGee's Alice, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, all of these slip under the radar. And peopel like Thompson failed to notice that GTA4 was announce,d have they tried to stop production before any real info is released? No.

[MaskedPixelante]

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within was also pretty gory, and lets not forget the recently released movie games of The Godfather, Jaws, Scarface and Resevoir Dogs. Did anyone see the Xplay review of it?

[kurisu7885]

And God of War. Nudity, extreme violence, sexual themes.

[beemoh]

Doom 3, American McGee's Alice, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, all of these slip under the radar. And peopel like Thompson failed to notice that GTA4 was announce,d have they tried to stop production before any real info is released? No.

My point is, RoR didn't slip under the radar.

I will concede one point to something Jack once said- one of his many party lines is that he's aiming for 'the big one', as it were, in Rockstar in the hope that it will send a message out to the rest of the industry who will stop making controversial games.

While it's not really a tactic I can condone, it is one that will theoretically work, and would explain the behaviour you've described.

However, it would also involve at least acknowledging other games, which rarely happens.

[Kittie Rose]

Lazy Dr...

let's try to tone down the JT rhetoric a bit...

My preference here is to address the issues, not the individual...

Thx

But he is a flaming homophobe and does deserve to be attacked for it. This kind of hypocrisy and bigotry should not be tolerated in a "progressive" world. Claiming that any kind of homosexual imagery is solely an "adult" thing but it's acceptable to show the heterosexual equivillents(the difference between actually requires, quite ironically, sexual themes to explain) is hypocrisy and he should be infinitely blasted for it.

Jack Thompson is quite simply a highly unpleasant human being. It's become blatant that he's not a misguided force caring for the Children of tomorrow, but a vicious predator trying to instill highly destructive conservative values in them.

[Hannah]

But he is a flaming homophobe and does deserve to be attacked for it. This kind of hypocrisy and bigotry should not be tolerated in a "progressive" world. Claiming that any kind of homosexual imagery is solely an "adult" thing but it's acceptable to show the heterosexual equivillents(the difference between actually requires, quite ironically, sexual themes to explain) is hypocrisy and he should be infinitely blasted for it.

Jack Thompson is quite simply a highly unpleasant human being. It's become blatant that he's not a misguided force caring for the Children of tomorrow, but a vicious predator trying to instill highly destructive conservative values in them.

The thing is, there are some serious doubts as to whether he is a homophobe. He'll say homophobic things in one press release, then when the conservatives refuse to come to his aid, he'll turn around and tell the liberal press "This actually bothers me because it stereotypes gays" or something to that effect.

[kurisu7885]

My point is, RoR didn't slip under the radar.

I will concede one point to something Jack once said- one of his many party lines is that he's aiming for 'the big one', as it were, in Rockstar in the hope that it will send a message out to the rest of the industry who will stop making controversial games.

While it's not really a tactic I can condone, it is one that will theoretically work, and would explain the behaviour you've described.

However, it would also involve at least acknowledging other games, which rarely happens.

Of course, it will start him and others on taking am ile and tryign to get other controversial material banned.

[beemoh]

The thing is, there are some serious doubts as to whether he is a homophobe. He'll say homophobic things in one press release, then when the conservatives refuse to come to his aid, he'll turn around and tell the liberal press "This actually bothers me because it stereotypes gays" or something to that effect.

On-topically: http://www.loserzcomic.com/index.php?id=22

[Thefremen]

Mmmmm as a member of Hannah's fan club I need to get her back on this...

Seriously, he might be like a dick cheney gay hater. He calls Madeline Albright a damned dirty gay in public, he says gay kissing is porn while hetero is not, and he says the gays have an agenda etc etc but in private he may not care all that much.

So he might just be playing to the audience. Like John Kerry duck hunting in MI but not hunting in CA, or George Bush wearing a shirt saying "speak english" in Montana but speaking spanish in Texas.

Still, I'd rather have a fellow who in private says "I don't like black people" than a guy who bombs black churches in public.

We can't guess how he personally feels but JT the public figure hates gays, and JT the public figure isn't so hot about Japanese either.

[KN]

Mmmmm as a member of Hannah's fan club I need to get her back on this...

Seriously, he might be like a dick cheney gay hater. He calls Madeline Albright a damned dirty gay in public, he says gay kissing is porn while hetero is not, and he says the gays have an agenda etc etc but in private he may not care all that much.

So he might just be playing to the audience. Like John Kerry duck hunting in MI but not hunting in CA, or George Bush wearing a shirt saying "speak english" in Montana but speaking spanish in Texas.

Still, I'd rather have a fellow who in private says "I don't like black people" than a guy who bombs black churches in public.

We can't guess how he personally feels but JT the public figure hates gays, and JT the public figure isn't so hot about Japanese either.

Soooo he's a troll?

[Dagrak]

On-topically: http://www.loserzcomic.com/index.php?id=22

Theres a much better one about unfair double standards...but I just can't find it in the archives...

Soooo he's a troll?

Well sure, just look at the hair

[kurisu7885]

Theres a much better one about unfair double standards...but I just can't find it in the archives...





It's only unfair when it doesn't go his way.:rolleyes:

[Kittie Rose]

The thing is, there are some serious doubts as to whether he is a homophobe. He'll say homophobic things in one press release, then when the conservatives refuse to come to his aid, he'll turn around and tell the liberal press "This actually bothers me because it stereotypes gays" or something to that effect.

Then he's just talking out of his ass. I've seen many homophobes use the "This is just stereotyping" applying to things that gays actually don't mind or like, because they're typically "gay". It's still homophobia, and he is a homophobe. You do not discriminate between heterosexuality and homosexuality so viciously and not be a homophobe.

[Beacon]

He's been really quiet. Do you think he might have finally given up, or is he just waiting for something big to pounce on?
On that note, anyone know if he still trolls Joystiq or did they kick him out, too?

[kurisu7885]

He's been really quiet. Do you think he might have finally given up, or is he just waiting for something big to pounce on?
On that note, anyone know if he still trolls Joystiq or did they kick him out, too?

He doesn't seem like the type to give up on something he feels he's right about.

[beemoh]

It's only unfair when it doesn't go his way.:rolleyes:

He means a comic behind that link I posted, which may or may not have been about The Gays.

[kurisu7885]

He means a comic behind that link I posted, which may or may not have been about The Gays.

Oh. well, I stand by my point.

[Dagrak]

And just as everyone was wondering where he had gone, the defiler's latest announcement appears on the GP main site.

[kurisu7885]

And just as everyone was wondering where he had gone, the defiler's latest announcement appears on the GP main site.

Mind posting it? I can't see the main site still.

[Dagrak]

Tivo Alert: Jack Thompson on ABC’s Nightline
December 13th, 2006

Controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson has contacted GamePolitics to say that he will be profiled tonight on ABC’s Nightline program.

Nightline airs at 11:35 PM in the Eastern United States.

There you go, just says he's going to be profiled which could mean anything from hours long documentary establishing his lifes crusade to a 20second clip saying he doesn't like games. Considering the time its on I'm guessing its nothing major.

[kurisu7885]

There you go, just says he's going to be profiled which could mean anything from hours long documentary establishing his lifes crusade to a 20second clip saying he doesn't like games. Considering the time its on I'm guessing its nothing major.

Mmkay, he's done this before and alot his "debates" seem ot almost degrade itno shoutign matches.

[Some Lazy Dr]

The final nail to his coffin, he's going on ABC. ABC is somewhat intelligent, so if they side with Jack O' Lantern (can I parody his name?)- I'll be surprised.

And yes, I see his movement rapidly decaying.

[Dagrak]

The final nail to his coffin, he's going on ABC. ABC is somewhat intelligent, so if they side with Jack O' Lantern (can I parody his name?)- I'll be surprised.

And yes, I see his movement rapidly decaying.

Intelligence means nothing in this conflict, its all about opinions. There are many intelligent people who think that games are bad so its usualy the media programs which latch onto this, so I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if they sided with him.

[Beacon]

Intelligence means nothing in this conflict, its all about opinions. There are many intelligent people who think that games are bad so its usualy the media programs which latch onto this, so I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if they sided with him.

Hey, a gamer can dream.

[Thefremen]

Intelligence means nothing in this conflict, its all about opinions. There are many intelligent people who think that games are bad so its usualy the media programs which latch onto this, so I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if they sided with him.

Exactly, we aren't their audience since we just get all our [H]ard news online, and then watch Jon Stewart make fun of said news. TV news hates everyone under 30.

[cyn1c42]

And just as everyone was wondering where he had gone, the defiler's latest announcement appears on the GP main site.

Don't insult defilers by comparing them to JT, demonic walking artillery machines are cool. (Been playing a lot of Dark Crusade lately)

[kurisu7885]

Exactly, we aren't their audience since we just get all our [H]ard news online, and then watch Jon Stewart make fun of said news. TV news hates everyone under 30.

No, just anyone with an IQ above their age number.

[cyn1c42]

why is ABC so patronizing towards JT?
-groans-

[kurisu7885]

why is ABC so patronizing towards JT?
-groans-

eh, what do you mean?

[Cecil475]

I recorded it.

However it got cut off in before the final minutes and when I started it up I got about 2 minutes before the segment was over.

I'll try to post it on you tube and post the link for anyone who wants to see it.

- Warren Lewis

[Grahamr]

Don't insult defilers by comparing them to JT, demonic walking artillery machines are cool. (Been playing a lot of Dark Crusade lately)

Or Undead elite soldiers under the command of dreadlords that (kinda) fight to take over arathi basin from the league of arathor.

[Dagrak]

Or Undead elite soldiers under the command of dreadlords that (kinda) fight to take over arathi basin from the league of arathor.

What about strange Zerg units that really don't seem to do anything...man the word defiler is a common name...

[Thefremen]

Just watched that video. I can't believe he thinks it was so funny and clever to give Janet Reno that questionare and I can't believe he thought HER actions were inappropriate. I would have just told him "WTF do you think this is ****ing elementary school?". I loved it when he called him on fake statistics for crime, it was about time someone did that. I loved how condescending it was, yet he told everyone "hey hey look at me I'm on teeveeeee!".

[Dagrak]

Just watched that video. I can't believe he thinks it was so funny and clever to give Janet Reno that questionare and I can't believe he thought HER actions were inappropriate. I would have just told him "WTF do you think this is ****ing elementary school?". I loved it when he called him on fake statistics for crime, it was about time someone did that. I loved how condescending it was, yet he told everyone "hey hey look at me I'm on teeveeeee!".

Was it pro Thompson, anti-Thompson or basicly even handed?

[Beacon]

Pretty even-handed, I'd say. The interviewer was polite and professional, but I got the impression that he found some of Thompson's arguments hard to swallow.
He brought up the fact that crime has been dropping, bible violence, and that Jack hasn't actually won a case yet. (Granted, the last was used to make Jack seem like David in David and Goliath)

[Cecil475]

I recorded it.

However it got cut off in before the final minutes and when I started it up I got about 2 minutes before the segment was over.

I'll try to post it on you tube and post the link for anyone who wants to see it.

- Warren Lewis

I know mine wont be as perfect as the one posted online but does anyone want me to put it on you tube?

- Warren Lewis

[Some Lazy Dr]

Wonderful. I hated how Matt Lauer sides with JT, what a tool... Course, it's Matt Lauer. But still!

And I'll take a look at that vid on YouTube.

[Some Lazy Dr]

I doubt he would see this in my other thread, so I created one here. Post your letters like me, keep em respectable. Don't insult the man, insult the issues. If you are pissed- avoid this.

Jack Thompson (should you ever read this),
I know your concern for your son to grow up non-violent and Christian, and he probably will. My concern is that he's too sheltered, and when violence does hit him in the real world he will be unprepared for it and will resort to violence.
Introduce him and yourself to some first person shooters. It'll keep him from turning into a psychopath. I've got FBI statistics to back me up. (Do you really think everyone who plays the military game that's free joins the army? Hell no. I didn't sign up for that game in the interests of me not receiving army pamphlets, thank you very much. I've been playing violent videogames for a longtime, possibly as young as 6 where I was a cartoon character lobbing missiles at my opponents. I'd HATE to defy god's word in "Thou shall not kill." I wouldn't kill- unless I felt I had no other choice (in an instance in which a son or a daughter was in danger, and that's going to be dealt with whenever I have kids, which won't be anytime in the next ten years).

Jack, you know you are wrong in your heart. Therefore, if I was you- I'd flip-flop your decision. Gamers are very forgiving. Most of us, anyway. Once you do that and actually start being a real lawyer (not one on a lost cause), you won't have issues of being debarred. Gamers like to forgive and forget (it's hard getting frags being pissed).

I will admit that explicit lyrics are pointless and if rappers focused more on the lyrics, it would sound better. That's why I'm a fan of rock and roll. Some rap, but it has to make a good point (or sound good and not be too explicit). 2 Live Crew was like so many other bands in history, faded into obscurity.
-Ryan from Las Vegas.

Post yer letters here. Maybe he'll read em, maybe he won't. Worth a shot, anyway. At least we'll have one more gamer if he does change his mind. Speaking of which, I should spend 40 cents and send some postal mail to him. He'd probably chuck it into his gasfire (speaking of which, how the hell did he get such a nice house?).

Oh, and if you see yourself in that WCPO photo smoking a cigarette and looking like a Borg, don't take it personally. I just wanted to recreate the first PaintShopPro image I ever successfully made.

[Thefremen]

Dude, he will never see it here, no JTs allowed.

You could email it to him. Dude gives out an address every time he says "hey everyone I'm on tv. Come see how good I look!".

[kurisu7885]

Dude, he will never see it here, no JTs allowed.

You could email it to him. Dude gives out an address every time he says "hey everyone I'm on tv. Come see how good I look!".

COurse, that's in the hopes you threaten his life so he can either sue you or get you thrown in jail.

[Dagrak]

I wouldn't recommend sending it to him. At best he'll ignore it and at worst he'll claim harrasment and try and arrest you.

[Kittie Rose]

Intelligence means nothing in this conflict, its all about opinions. There are many intelligent people who think that games are bad so its usualy the media programs which latch onto this, so I wouldn't be shocked in the slightest if they sided with him.

Incorrect. It's not just about opinions as there are certain truths involved here. To deny this would be to commit the relativist fallacy.

Yes, those people may be intelligent, but only in certain areas, not as much in others.

[Dagrak]

Incorrect. It's not just about opinions as there are certain truths involved here. To deny this would be to commit the relativist fallacy.

Yes, those people may be intelligent, but only in certain areas, not as much in others.

They remain intelligent but more often then not it is not their intelligence the media wants to hear, it is their opinions. An intelligent mother picks up the game box, looks at the rating and decides if its suitable for her child. The mother featured on the media programs however is almost always the parent who bought it for her child without looking, let them play it for a bit and then saw something was wrong.

When you have parental outrage and shock tactics actual intelligence and information is secondary. It applies to most stories, take Bird Flu for example. Kills hardly anyone, far less then the everyday common flu and yet its hyped up with scare tactics to make a bigger story. Intelligence plays little part in the story, only the segments that get the greatest response are considered.

Intelligence in the field of games knowledge is something we should see in this debate and occasionally we do get it, but the greatest exposure goes to whoever can make the most sensationalist claim.

[Cecil475]

Dude, he will never see it here, no JTs allowed.

You could email it to him. Dude gives out an address every time he says "hey everyone I'm on tv. Come see how good I look!".

There is only one way I can see him viewing this site or the main site. And thats him viewing this site from another computer. like from a friend or reltives or from a public library that has internet access. As long as he stays quiet he does not get banned again.

- Warren Lewis

[kurisu7885]

There is only one way I can see him viewing this site or the main site. And thats him viewing this site from another computer. like from a friend or reltives or from a public library that has internet access. As long as he stays quiet he does not get banned again.

- Warren Lewis

I'm still assuming it's him that got me banned before and he somehow saw my post, or something.

[Cecil475]

I'm still assuming it's him that got me banned before and he somehow saw my post, or something.

Thats what I'm thinking dude.

- Warren Lewis

Edit - It might take a while to get the video uploded on you tube. I'm visiting my parents. They have dial-up.

[KN]

Wait, we're talking about fallacies, and Silver isn't here. What is this?

[Some Lazy Dr]

I have no doubt JT is so immortalized with himself that he'll still visit this site.

[Kittie Rose]

They remain intelligent but more often then not it is not their intelligence the media wants to hear, it is their opinions. An intelligent mother picks up the game box, looks at the rating and decides if its suitable for her child. The mother featured on the media programs however is almost always the parent who bought it for her child without looking, let them play it for a bit and then saw something was wrong.

What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent", though? Are you basing it on the normalised view of responsibility and academic achievement? There is much more to intelligence than that. Critical Thinking is a much more important tool in today's meme ridden world.

A misinformed view on games does indeed mean the person is less "Intelligent" than someone who has an informed view, in some small way.

[Thefremen]

What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent", though? Are you basing it on the normalised view of responsibility and academic achievement? There is much more to intelligence than that. Critical Thinking is a much more important tool in today's meme ridden world.

A misinformed view on games does indeed mean the person is less "Intelligent" than someone who has an informed view, in some small way.

There are many types of intelligence. JT, in example, is somewhat witty, and clever. He always leaves updated contact info with his press releases in the hopes that someone will send a death threat to give him more credability in the public eye.

In LJ he flames like the most wretched troll you've ever seen, but in public he composes pretty good emails, albiet the spelling and grammar are a bit lacking. However, he allows his ego to get him into places where his lies and rhetoric will be exposed.

Dr. Walsh though, he doesn't play the game all that well. He said something intelligent, that it is parent's responsibility to take care of their children. You simply do not do that when you're a media watchdog group! It's as bad a move as a baptist church not constantly spreading lies and hatred towards homosexuals.

[Dagrak]

What exactly do you mean by "Intelligent", though? Are you basing it on the normalised view of responsibility and academic achievement? There is much more to intelligence than that. Critical Thinking is a much more important tool in today's meme ridden world.

A misinformed view on games does indeed mean the person is less "Intelligent" than someone who has an informed view, in some small way.

We're getting into a semantics discussion here which isn't exactly a productive topic. To put bluntly intelligence is open to interpretation, much like the notion of good and evil. You could say I am intelligent because I can argue theology or discuss the finer points of UK history, however I can also be seen as an idiot because I have trouble with spelling and my maths skills are so bad that when I was at school my teacher actually sighed during the exam. Its all about how you want to argue it, now as TheFremen already mentioned, JT can be seen as intelligent because he knows how to circumvent the system and get his way around by appealing to the media's fear mongering, however our interpretation is of him as an imbecile because he doesn't understand how the games and indeed popular culture work. Now in many respects the media are intelligent, after all they know how to play to the masses, however they are also unintelligent because they sometimes fail to research what they attack. So my original point remains, opinion serves to benefit them more then intelligence and fact.

[nightwng2000]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16242875/site/newsweek/

[kurisu7885]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16242875/site/newsweek/

Why do they keep harping about that 42%? I guess anything above zero percent failure is unacceptable

[Dagrak]

Why do they keep harping about that 42%? I guess anything above zero percent failure is unacceptable

Well its quite a big figure, being nearly half of all the kids used.

[kurisu7885]

Well its quite a big figure, being nearly half of all the kids used.

Used being the key word.

Anyway, all things considered, a 58%[I might be off by ten at least] success isn't too bad.

[Dagrak]

Used being the key word.

Anyway, all things considered, a 58%[I might be off by ten at least] success isn't too bad.

Aye, but when have you seen the media say "the glass is half full" when they can say "the glass is half empty"?

[kurisu7885]

Aye, but when have you seen the media say "the glass is half full" when they can say "the glass is half empty"?

Eh heh, then behind your back they drink what's left in the glass.

[Dagrak]

Eh heh, then behind your back they drink what's left in the glass.

Ooh thats a good quote! I'm pinching that one!

[kurisu7885]

Ooh thats a good quote! I'm pinching that one!

Thanks ,feel free to use it ^^

[nightwng2000]

I'm still trying to get the second half of my comment on that article posted. Been trying for about an hour now.

And the formating isn't my fault. I formated fine when writing but the posting jammed it all together.

[kurisu7885]

Something I take note of is his conveniant timing. Both with his modest proposal and with the time when Hal Halpin was on GP to answer question, he always came in a little late to make sure he wouldn't be contradicted. He knew that game of the caliber he wanted couldn't be made in the short time frame he demanded, and with the Hal Halpin online press conference, he came in after Hal left, that way he wouldn't be contradicted. and he could speak in as much a condescending matter as he wanted.

[Dagrak]

Something I take note of is his conveniant timing. Both with his modest proposal and with the time when Hal Halpin was on GP to answer question, he always came in a little late to make sure he wouldn't be contradicted. He knew that game of the caliber he wanted couldn't be made in the short time frame he demanded, and with the Hal Halpin online press conference, he came in after Hal left, that way he wouldn't be contradicted. and he could speak in as much a condescending matter as he wanted.

Thats the downside of internet debate. Unless you're online all the time then you can easily miss new conversations and the delay in your response makes it look like you can't respond.

[kurisu7885]

Thats the downside of internet debate. Unless you're online all the time then you can easily miss new conversations and the delay in your response makes it look like you can't respond.

Still ,wek now in his case it's hardly an accident when he comes in when someone can't debate him due to sheduleing[sp?] or whatnot.

[Kittie Rose]

We're getting into a semantics discussion here which isn't exactly a productive topic. To put bluntly intelligence is open to interpretation, much like the notion of good and evil.

Moral relativism doesn't hold logically for a number of reasons.

Yes, it is an astounding claim to suggest that maybe Morals can be relative, yet many of us do have a "moral sense" that isn't based in any social or religious doctrine, and it almost always tends to be based on the idea of what hurts people, and what helps them. What hurts and helps people doesn't change person to person as far as the person doing the deed is concerned, only the target of that event differed. Because it's not "Personally" subjective, there is indeed an objective moral code that can be derived using logical constructs.
Yes, some people may override this, but it's almost always harmful in at least some small way when they do.

Plus moral relativism is nothing more than an annoying load of pap used to defend bigotry anyway. "Right" and "Wrong" actually mean something.

[Silver_Derstin]

Moral relativism doesn't hold logically for a number of reasons.

Existence, in itself, is 100% relative due to the fact we employ a relative tool in order to define existence (we call that tool "language" and it is, quite possibly, the most arbitrary and relative tool there is). As such, morals are completely and utterly relative from the start, but even there definitions of "good" and "evil" are based 100% on cultural and societal training we receive from the media, our parents and tradition.

Don't believe me? Look into the representation of "good" and "evil" within various cultures across the world. You'll see that they are QUITE different.

[kurisu7885]

Existence, in itself, is 100% relative due to the fact we employ a relative tool in order to define existence (we call that tool "language" and it is, quite possibly, the most arbitrary and relative tool there is). As such, morals are completely and utterly relative from the start, but even there definitions of "good" and "evil" are based 100% on cultural and societal training we receive from the media, our parents and tradition.

Don't believe me? Look into the representation of "good" and "evil" within various cultures across the world. You'll see that they are QUITE different.

what we view as heinous and unthinkable may not be so bad in say, Eruope. Just an example off the top of my hea.d If anyone wants to elaborate, feel free.

[Silver_Derstin]

Example: In Japan, it is good practice to do underhanded deals with your co-workers in order to promote your new project. Do that in the US, you get fired.

[Kittie Rose]

Existence, in itself, is 100% relative due to the fact we employ a relative tool in order to define existence (we call that tool "language" and it is, quite possibly, the most arbitrary and relative tool there is). As such, morals are completely and utterly relative from the start, but even there definitions of "good" and "evil" are based 100% on cultural and societal training we receive from the media, our parents and tradition.

Don't believe me? Look into the representation of "good" and "evil" within various cultures across the world. You'll see that they are QUITE different.

That means that people have different ideas of what right and wrong are. It does not make them correct. By your logic, because they are different religions and scientific theories, they should all be equally as valid?

I can bull**** moral relativism very easily.

"I believe that it is wrong to have a beard."
"Why?"
"I don't have any reason, other than I believe it."

This person lacks reasoning to their beliefs. I can easily claim that his logic is faulty and I'd be correct. Why is it wrong to have a beard? There is a problem here - if "Wrong" has no real definition, then you cannot logically back any claim that something is "wrong".
Relativists are using "Wrong" as an utterly meaningless term that can be strapped to anything. It is the one of the most dangerous argument over semantics in existence.

By "Wrong" you seem to mean "I don't think you should do that", which once again begs the question "Why?". A logical belief would be "I believe it's wrong to have our beard, because the bearded members of our species have been proven to affect certain members through hideous spores that force them to grow beards against their will. It is selfish."

Because "Wrong" means "Negative", and this person is inflicting a potentially Negative state on another sentient being, it can hold logically. "Why is X Negative"? "Because it inflicts Negative State Y." Why should wrong mean anything else? Like it or not it IS implying a negative, and allowing people to go around calling anything "incorrect" when it's not is not rational. Wrong simply must imply behaviour that is proven in some way to be negative as it is a negative term in itself.

What is "Negative" is defined by our own overall state of well-being. Just about all of us have at least some constant idea of feeling good and bad. Now, people very often don't know what best delivers those states, but they have some idea, and there are members of our society(Psychologists) who probably have an even better idea.

It is pretty blatant that, say, not being allowed to marry is forcing a Negative state on homosexuals. Putting up with Gay Marriage is only a very minor negative state for conservatives. Another thing to point out that some Negative states are inherent - others are not. Lack of gay marriage is a violation of important rights, it is inherent and objective. Disliking gay marriage is not - it is a mutable viewpoint founded in illogic. Objective Negative States should almost always take precedence over the Subjective ones - because if we're using a system of weights(which we have to do determine if something is "more wrong") the lack of ability to change one effect renders it "heavier" as it registers a bigger impact in the given system.

Deriving morals from logic seems strange but if you think about it, many "moral" stances such as those on gay marriage can be falsified using logic. Thus, you have invalidating a moral position, meaning there are some moral constants.

Therefore, Relativism fails logically.

Weighting is, as I said, important. Something can affect someone hundreds to thousands of times more than it can affect another person. This is why "Tyranny of the Majority" isn't fair - it's usually discriminating against 5% of the population with a weight of several thousand times(in how much more and often it affects you) of the weight in which the minority can affect them. "Weighting" can be hard to grasp since even a small weight can be noticable, yet people with massive weights often manage to get by without noticing as much as they should.

what we view as heinous and unthinkable may not be so bad in say, Eruope. Just an example off the top of my hea.d If anyone wants to elaborate, feel free.

That doesn't make it right. Honestly, why do relativists feel the need to explain their "beliefs" to me like this? I know what exactly you're talking about. I'm telling you it's hore****. If something does not hurt anyone, there is no. Maybe there is some small room for ambiguity and subjectivism, but morals, on the whole should *not* be subjective. Logic can be used to derive these from the point that Player A should be no more inherently entitled to life or happiness, starting out, than Player B, and that some things are just plain hurtful, beyond the "vitcim's" control.

I have never seen any advantage to holding a relativist viewpoint. It is almost always used to defend behaviours which are logically indenfensible.

Without an objective definition of what's "right" and "wrong", struggle, betterment and rebellion have no meaning. Yet those are three of the things in our lives that give us the most meaning.

[Silver_Derstin]

Without an objective definition of what's "right" and "wrong", struggle, betterment and rebellion have no meaning. Yet those are three of the things in our lives that give us the most meaning.

Right and wrong have no meaning outside the meaning that was created for them by the society. Same with struggle, betterment(sp?) and rebellion. As such, they have no meaning in themselves, only in the fabricated societal tool which is language. Also, since you cannot define wrong without defining right, and right without defining what is not right (like a dog, or a cat), this means that you need everything in order to have a coherent set of ideas, and that the importance which we all give to those various elements will vary depending on the person you interview (you believe rebellion gives meaning, I believe in the importance of stability, and yes, we are BOTH right and wrong at the same time.)

Relativism and deconstructionism both work with the concept of dual nature, so if you don't understand how something can be in two states at once, maybe you should look it up, study it, write a thesis on it and publish it for us.

Guddo rukku ando gudobai.

[Kittie Rose]

Right and wrong have no meaning outside the meaning that was created for them by the society. Same with struggle, betterment(sp?) and rebellion. As such, they have no meaning in themselves, only in the fabricated societal tool which is language. Also, since you cannot define wrong without defining right, and right without defining what is not right (like a dog, or a cat), this means that you need everything in order to have a coherent set of ideas, and that the importance which we all give to those various elements will vary depending on the person you interview (you believe rebellion gives meaning, I believe in the importance of stability, and yes, we are BOTH right and wrong at the same time.)

Relativism and deconstructionism both work with the concept of dual nature, so if you don't understand how something can be in two states at once, maybe you should look it up, study it, write a thesis on it and publish it for us.

Guddo rukku ando gudobai.

Luckily, the rest of my post which you conveniently ignored debunked this utter nonsense. "We're both right AND wrong !!!" what idiocy.

You have nothing to back anything you're saying.

[Silver_Derstin]

You have nothing to back anything you're saying.

A specialization in deconstructionism, relativism and other literary theories, maybe?

The whole literary field of Deconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction),maybe?

Hundreds of year of philosophy, maybe? From Plato to Dante to Nietzche?

[Kittie Rose]

A specialization in deconstructionism, relativism and other literary theories, maybe?

That's not real backing. I asked you what your backing for relativism is and you say "RELATIVISM!!!". You have no logical backing. In fact, you are committing the relativist fallacy by extending relativism where it doesn't belong.

You obviously haven't heard of "Utilitarianism"; a much sounder theory than whatever nonsense you've been reading.

Here is a nice little piece on Moral Objectivism:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p10.html

PINKER: As for the first question, who put them there -- it may be like the question, "Who put the number three there?" It would be best to get a real moral philosopher to defend the theory of moral realism, but I'll do my best. Perhaps morality comes from the inherent logic of behavior that has consequences for other agents that have goals. If one of the goals is to increase total well-being, then certain consequences may follow in the same way that the Pythagorean theorem follows from the construction of a triangle. Moral truths may exist in the same sense that mathematical truths exist, as consequences of certain axioms. That's my best rendition of the premises of a theory of moral realism.

That's about correct. it doesn't seem like any "serious" people take relativism seriously. It really is philosophy for the unintellectual.

Also:

http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/explained/index.htm

Objectivism explained. Objectivism is the only really "stable" philosophy.

[Dagrak]

That's not real backing. I asked you what your backing for relativism is and you say "RELATIVISM!!!". You have no logical backing. In fact, you are committing the relativist fallacy by extending relativism where it doesn't belong.

You obviously haven't heard of "Utilitarianism"; a much sounder theory than whatever nonsense you've been reading.

Here is a nice little piece on Moral Objectivism:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins_pinker/debate_p10.html



That's about correct. it doesn't seem like any "serious" people take relativism seriously. It really is philosophy for the unintellectual.

Also:

http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/explained/index.htm

Objectivism explained. Objectivism is the only really "stable" philosophy.

Point One: You have proven my point over the futility of the semantics discussion by dragging on this off topic discussion over relativism vs objectivism for two pages!
Point Two: You're not helping your argument by littering it with thinly veiled insults and mockery (see underlined).

The problem with this discussion is its based around how you would like the arguments to be handled rather then how the arguments are handled. Commonly people use a relative stance to base their arguments. You can see this has been the case pretty much throughout history, with reliance on Church doctrine and government type. The average community does not work on logic but on belief. Logic dictates that games won't make you into a serial killer because moving a mouse and aiming a gun are not the same. However public belief is that violent games will make you violent. Its not logical but it is what people will choose to believe. So in this argument intelligence is entirely relative because the winning side will have a greater chance of achieving victory through the manipulation of opinion rather then through the presentation of facts.

Historical Example: The Chrisitan church has used public opinion to alter history's view on "unsavoury" religions. Fact states that the Voodoo doll does not exist, however the Church has implanted this fake sinister object by utilising public opinion and basing it on the European Witchcraft practice of using "poppet's". Actual intelligence and fact shows none of this darker stuff but you ask the general populace about voodoo and this is what they will mention. Thusly opinion defeats intelligence.

Again this argument is not how it should be but how it is. Thats not relatavist fallacy just a true statement. If logic prevailed in arguments Richard Dawkins would have got rid of religion by now :D

[Grahamr]

I cannot tell for the life of me what this conversation is about. :confused:

Maybe i should sort of call the mods? I mean...just to see if everythings ok.

[Some Lazy Dr]

Keep it on topic, ladies and gents. That and don't flame about it. We're talking about Jack Thompson and his issues.

[Kittie Rose]

Point Two: You're not helping your argument by littering it with thinly veiled insults and mockery (see underlined).

That's because relativists are ****ing impossible to argue with. You can't get a point across when any decent argument gets countered with "But that's just your point of view, it's STILL relative!". If you notice, the vast majority of my post was ignored. That REALLY frustrates me because I really do feel it debunked the notion of relativism. I am absolutely ****ing tired of relativism because it justifies the unjustifiable.

[Silver_Derstin]

That's because relativists are ****ing impossible to argue with. You can't get a point across when any decent argument gets countered with "But that's just your point of view, it's STILL relative!". If you notice, the vast majority of my post was ignored. That REALLY frustrates me because I really do feel it debunked the notion of relativism. I am absolutely ****ing tired of relativism because it justifies the unjustifiable.

/runs trollfeed.exe

That's because the entire world, and our perception of the entire world, is relative and abstract. As such, if you promote objectivism, you are wrong and cannot defend your point from the start.

[nightwng2000]

Keep it on topic, ladies and gents. That and don't flame about it. We're talking about Jack Thompson and his issues.

"...his issues."?
That's such a loaded comment. :)

Not to mention needing 3 psychiatrists, 2 therapists, and a partridge in a pear tree.

[beemoh]

"...his issues."?
That's such a loaded comment. :)

Not to mention needing 3 psychiatrists, 2 therapists, and a partridge in a pear tree.

By the fourth suit of Thompson, we said that he should see... 4 behavioural psychologists, 3 psychiatrists, 2 therapists, and a partridge in a pear tree.

[Kittie Rose]

/runs trollfeed.exe

That's because the entire world, and our perception of the entire world, is relative and abstract. As such, if you promote objectivism, you are wrong and cannot defend your point from the start.

This is exactly what I mean. What a pathetic reason for dodging 90% of my argument.

No it's not. You have a viewpoint, at best, and a shaky one at that. There are certain constants in the world that don't change because some snot nosed faux-intellectual like you wants them to. There are objective constants. Things happen no matter what our perception of them.

As such, if you promote relativism, you are wrong and cannot defend your point from the start.

Also, I am not a troll. You are the one, technically, trolling me with that. A troll seeks a reaction. I do not, it seems to be what you want.

[nightwng2000]

By the fourth suit of Thompson, we said that he should see... 4 behavioural psychologists, 3 psychiatrists, 2 therapists, and a partridge in a pear tree.

By the end of 2006 we said that he should see... no less than fiiiiive Bar Com-plaints....

4 behavioural psy-cho-lo-gists
3 psy-chi-a-trists
2 ther-a-pists
and a partridge in a pear tree.


(Oh yeah, I'm in the seasonal mood now! :) )

[Silver_Derstin]

Also, I am not a troll. You are the one, technically, trolling me with that. A troll seeks a reaction. I do not, it seems to be what you want.

"Relativism doesn't work because I said so!" is your argument, which I debunked by pointing out various other schools of philosophy along with literary criticism. You're the one dodging the arguments by saying clearly that Objectivism is the only thing you want to work.

Also, looking at all of your posts, I can clearly see all you are good at is trolling and claiming you are right (see the Wii threads). I'm actually getting a degree in that **** (philosophy and criticism) so if my arguments don't stand against your "rigorous" analysis, well I guess Doctor Shawn Malley and Doctor Johnathan Fortier of the Bishop's University are quacks and don't know what they're talking about.

I like getting reactions from people. I know exactly what buttons to push to get a reaction. That's how I get to find out who's a troll and who is not. I guess you fall in one of those two categories at the moment. But you can get better, like some other people on this board managed to do.

[Kittie Rose]

"Relativism doesn't work because I said so!" is your argument,

"Objectivism doesn't work because I said so!" is your argument.

I have provided several A4 pages worth of reasoning as to why Relativism fails in a number of circumstances, and you simply ignored and refused to reply to the vast majority of it.

I do NOT see you posting the same quantity or quality to back your claims, so how dare you say that to begin with.

well I guess Doctor Shawn Malley and Doctor Johnathan Fortier of the Bishop's University are quacks and don't know what they're talking about.

Appeal to Authority.

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regards to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.

I could equally say that you're saying Utilitarians and objectivists(small o, not "Big O" AynRandians, who ARE quacks) are quacks and don't know what they're talking about. I'm not going to drop names just to look smart, either. There are lists on Wikipedia if you want them.

I like getting reactions from people. I know exactly what buttons to push to get a reaction. That's how I get to find out who's a troll and who is not

That IS trolling, you idiot.

I honestly can't believe you just said that. I've seen the word "troll" abused before, but ****, are you clueless. What on earth, honestly, and reply to this before I hit you with the real definition, do you think a Troll IS? Since you're a relativist I take it you don't really have to define this, it's just another meaningless term you can slap on something.

Wikipedia defines it as this -

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."

The word "troll" actually comes from a fishing term; a method of baiting the fish. Who do you think is baiting who here?

Here's a guideline - trolls almost NEVER get banned from forums, they get other people banned instead. If someone gets banned from a forum, they were either a bad troll, or weren't a troll at all. Bad moderation is common practice online, and most mods and admins refuse to scratch the surface of a post. Trolls are usually very smug; you fit the bill there too.

Please just admit you were wrong on this, and cease trolling.

[Grahamr]

Please just admit you were wrong on this, and cease trolling.


How about you both admit that you were wrong, lest you face the wrath of the mods i just called.

This is an Off-topic flame war, with no place in this thread.

[nightwng2000]

See? Now you got Grahamr mad, and he's the QUIET one. :)

[GamePolitics]

Deteriorating into OT flames...

I declare the 15 page rule in effect... and close this thread.