Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 Ľ Other Boards Ľ Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:03 PM
alaskapidove's Avatar
alaskapidove Offline
Ultra RPG Official
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 183
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hncudrWXpX0
Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel
Because everyone knows how much kids love Kobe Bryant. To be honest, I think Kobe loves kids a lot more. >> Most of the celebrities in the advertisement, such as Jimmy Kimmel and Eminem, are celebrities who appeal to adults. Obviously, this advertisement isn't aimed at children.



The same with this. How many little kids listen to Metallica?


Quote:
But playing the game likely was the switch that turned them into killers, if they hadn't been introduced to the violence they may have never performed the killings. A ban would keep this switch from being turned on, possibly, and maybe the person could get some help before they go and do something rash (like kill innocents and then themselves).

The key words in this paragraph are 'maybe', 'possibly', and 'may'. What's done is done. There's no way to prove video games caused those killings, though, I believe that the real root of the Columbine Massacre was the merciless teasing that those two received, along with preexisting mental health problems. Violence is a part of our culture, it always has been. It's just part of the world. Washing everything clean and trying to make the world like a good, fair place won't do anything. Life doesn't work that way. Violence happens, it's a part of life, and in fact, video games are a great way for people to release pent up rage. Would you rather have someone with anger management problems screaming at people on Black Ops or beating the crap out of somebody because they looked at them funny?


As for the study you linked, let me copy and paste a few parts of it that you neglected to:


Quote:
The most widely used "positive" impact video games are said to have on children is that they may improve a player's manual dexterity and computer literacy. Ever-improving technology also provides players with better graphics that give a more "realistic" virtual playing experience.

In a world that is increasingly connected by technology, these are skills that people need to develop.


Quote:
Part of the increase in aggressive behavior is linked to the amount of time children are allowed to play video games. In one study by Walsh (2000), a majority of teens admitted that their parents do not impose a time limit on the number of hours they are allowed to play video games.

Okay, let's think about this. What kind of parents don't keep an eye on their kids and let them play video games for as long as they want? Negligent parents. Obviously, kids with parents who don't pay attention and let them run around doing whatever they want aren't going to instill good values in their kids. Maybe they're busy, or maybe they just don't care. Either way, kids who haven't been brought up right are going to show the signs that you mentioned:


Quote:
Tend to be more aggressive
Are more prone to confrontation with their teachers
May engage in fights with their peers
See a decline in school achievements. (Gentile et al, 2004).

These are all things that kids do when they have a crappy home life. You can't blame video games for that.


Quote:
There's many ways to define art, but the kind we're talking about is fine art; in the case of books, it's called books of literary merit. That means when I talk about books, I'm not talking about Harry Potter or American Psycho. I'm talking about literature, such as Crime and Punishment and Heart of Darkness. These novels have well crafted themes, symbols, and literary devices that ones you mentioned do not.

I'd like to point out that the books I mentioned do have all of those things. The point I was trying to make, is that something can be used for entertainment and higher thinking. Just because something isn't called a classic by a group of professors, doesn't mean it can provoke higher thinking. The same is true of video games, and Final Fantasy was a perfect example. In fact, when sad things happen in video games, that isn't encouraging desensitization and violence, it's encouraging empathy.


Quote:
But there will be an amount of them that do, and to protect those that do it would be in the best interest of everyone to ban things, such as violent video games, that children may emulate and cause harm to themselves and others.

The kind of people who would imitate video games are the same ones who cave to peer pressure. It's only a matter of time before they do something stupid, like join a gang or start snorting coke.


Quote:
And yes, to answer your question, a good well behaved child wouldn't watch pornography; it is illegal.
Matter of opinion, now isn't it? :b


Quote:
Did the ending of FFXII change your life in some way? I highly doubt it. Did it make you feel different about your surroundings? I, once again, doubt it. You cried because you were in the moment of the game, connected to the characters. It did not show or explain something in the world.

That's not really true. It's like saying that because Shakespeare's plays were made up, they don't tell us anything about that period in history. Obviously video games aren't based on real life for the most part, but they show the values that our culture possesses. Maybe most of those values are somewhat depressing (materialism for example), but they still show something about the way our society behaves.


Quote:
We can prevent from corrupting children and teens though.

No, we really can't. You can ban all the violent video games, movies, and TV shows you want, but you'll never be able to stop the gang fights, the school shootings, the drunken fathers, dead beat moms, rapes, murders, or any other harsh fact of existence. There will always be violence. Even in video games with amazing graphics, the violence is still somewhat cartoon-y. Real life isn't, and you can't keep kids from being exposed to real life. You shouldn't in fact. Violence is terrible, but necessary. I'm glad that I'm not sheltered, because I have the knowledge and wisdom to know exactly how ****** up the world is and what I have to do to not get hurt. Sheltering kids isn't going to help them at all. I'm not saying video games are going to teach kids how to get along in life, but they're not going to hurt.


Quote:
Do you know many people were mad when gun laws were put into place? A lot. Did that stop the government from enforcing the gun laws? No. Do you know why gun laws were put into place? Because it made the world a safer place.

You know what kills people? Guns. You know what doesn't? Freaking video games. I mean, if we're being hypothetical, you could probably slit somebody's wrist/neck with a game disc, but it'd be a lot of effort. You can't really compare guns to banning video games. Also, one of the reasons people were so upset was they were worried about the second amendment being violated, because it's an integral part of our democracy. We need guns to defend ourselves. Something even more important this ban would violate, is our First Amendment, our right to free speech. The pen is mightier than the sword, or in this case, the pixels are mightier than the bullet. Sure, most people aren't spreading information about the government through video games, but it's the idea that matters. Once it's okay to ban violent games, who says we should have violent movies, or pictures and videos from the war in the Middle East? Maybe we should block the average citizen from seeing any violence! Do you see where I'm going? We have to protect our rights as a people, or we'll lose them.
__________________

Last edited by alaskapidove; 07-07-2011 at 02:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:45 AM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jr Trainer View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hncudrWXpX0
Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel

Promotional events are surrounded by celebrities as well.

http://nerdreactor.com/2010/11/05/ga...s-for-charity/
Everybody, whether young or old, enjoys playing "soldier" with friends in their backyard. This is just a real life representation of that. & LOL @ Metalicca. Bad example on your side sir.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr
But playing the game likely was the switch that turned them into killers, if they hadn't been introduced to the violence they may have never performed the killings. A ban would keep this switch from being turned on, possibly, and maybe the person could get some help before they go and do something rash (like kill innocents and then themselves).

http://www.pamf.org/preteen/parents/...20adolescents?

"In another study conducted by Gentile, Lynch, Linder & Walsh (2004, p.6) "adolescent girls played video games for an average of 5 hours a week, whereas boys averaged 13 hours a week". The authors also stated that teens who play violent video games for extended periods of time:
  • Tend to be more aggressive
  • Are more prone to confrontation with their teachers
  • May engage in fights with their peers
  • See a decline in school achievements. (Gentile et al, 2004)."
Clearly you don't understand the psychological effects of psychopathy and depression on the human mind... When diagnosed with psychopathy, you are considered to be totally without proper conception of the real world and your surroundings which is why some people are sent to insane asylums after their court case. With depression, you simple don't care about life anymore. The depressed one most likely sought revenge on his peers who led him to the the depression. As for your study, that's way out of date considering the recent technological advances in online play such as Nintendo Wifi, XBOX Live, and Playstation Network. This wave of technology brought on millions of new gamers to the world of first person shooters thus skewing your results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The pokemaster View Post
The pokemaster
Elemental
For the Ban


So, this is American-based again. But I can actually talk about this so okay.
Just because it happened in the United States doesn't mean it isn't a controversial topic. Open your mind a little bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemaster
So this is like my opinion of where I stand, not based on what anyone else has said.

I'm for the ban. Even though I'm only fifteen right now, and I'd be affected by this if I was in America, I speak from a perspective of someone who would be heavily affected by this ban. And while I don't agree with it from my entertainment perspective, as I'll lose some good games, I think that in the broader picture, it would be more beneficial.
No you wouldn't lose the games you currently have because the proposed bill intended on criminalizing the sale of M-rated games to those who don't meet the age requirement. It wouldn't criminalize the possession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemaster
I'm going to start off with the whole, "video games negatively affect people" thing. And I do believe it's true. I know that my community in my area would be completely different to the community in wherever the rest of you live, but the way I see it, video games are just as bad, if not worse, than movies and the media for giving young teenagers the wrong impression. The media give so much publicity to bad behaviour, and so much publicity to people who abuse drugs or alcohol. Not only that, but death and sexual offences almost make up the backbone of the media. I took a look at Yahoo.com.au, to have a glance at the news, and what did I find? Drinking, dead body found after eight years, a Chinese escalator accident where a boy died, and around 30 were injured, a scandalous banner for charity which is being being deemed inappropriate for sex refences, and the Royal Fashion Show. I can list more. But four out of those five are throw light on negative things. That's the society we live in. The whole world isn't bad, but the media portrays it to be.
You say this as if you're in totally in support of the proposed law, but in reality, you probably went straight back to playing these inappropriate games therefore making you a hypocrite in your argument. But anyways, to keep the discussion going, yes, violent video games are worse than violent movies. Why do I get the feeling that I'm beginning to repeat myself? If you read the earlier part of the debate, you would have seen that I pointed out that retail stores refrain from selling M-rated games to minors 80% of the time while movie theaters do a crappy job of 45%. And wtf are you talking about in the second half of your paragraph? Stay on topic, lol. Nobody cares about some Chinese dude drinking on an escalator at a fashion show. It's totally irrelevant to the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemaster
So how does this relate to video games? Most video games nowadays, especially the games in question, are excessively violent. There are very few games nowadays, from what I have seen, that offer good, clean fun for teenagers. A lot of games offer countless amounts of blood and gore, and terribly horrific ways to mutilate people, and that deems it an M rating, when a few years ago, Final Fantasy 12 (woo FF references) was deemed M because it contained some fantasy violence, where you slashed at dragons with swords and bows. There was no blood, no gore, no randomly ripping the dragon's head off. Just shooting it, and it falls down dying. And perhaps that was appropriate when when FF12 was released back in '06. But teenagers have started becoming more and more violent, because of the negative media, and video games have adapted to suit their more violent audience. Games like Call of Duty, Bioshock, and Red Dead Redeption, which are very mainstream around my area right now, all contain ridiculoous violence. Red Dead Redeption, for example. is almost constant 3rd person shooting, references to alcohol and drugs, overly excessive swearing, and almost deem it okay to shoot that random stranger on the road. Heck, you can shoot animals and skin them. And when you skin them, blood splashes all over your screen, and you can see a de-skinned carcass of a horse. It's horrific.
Okay... you just explained why some games are rated M... What does that have to do with criminalizing the sale? Are teenagers running around doing those sort of things to each other? No, they aren't. Sorry, but you should go throw that whole paragraph in the trash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemaster
Now, I absolutely love these games, and that, I believe, is where the problem lies. I know how incredibly addictive this overly violent games are, and because I play these games so much, I don't see things like death as a big problem, or overly important, when I should. Death isn't something that should be taken lightly, but I, and my friends as well, all do it instinctively. Honestly, at times, we're just like the next group of idiotic morons, and we have done stupid things like jumping off rooves, just because we can. We all know better than that, and sometimes we can stop ourselves, but sometimes we just ignore that, because sub-consciously, we think we can get away with it, because in a lot of games, you can jump off a cliff without any repercussions, and it takes one of us to break their leg before we realise we shouldn't do it, and god knows we aren't the only ones.

Yes, there are kids who are already messed up, but a majority of people aren't, and do things because they don't know any better. Not everyone are as intelligent as you lot, and can, and will, do things because they saw it on a game, and won't know any better, and then they could seriously injure themselves, someone else, or completely ruin their life.
Hey look, I was right about you being a hypocrite about the matter seeing as how you just openly admitted the "loving these games." You're just taking the side of pro-ban because you either find it easier to argue for or because you actually have never played these games and are truly against them. I'll go with the former for your case. The same goes for Jr because I know enough about him to say that.

As for jumping off a roof because you saw it done in a video game, that's not to blame on games like COD. In fact, in some cases on COD, if you jump from a two story building and landed on your feet, you could die. But in real life, if you did the same, you would most likely just break a leg or two. But then when you look at something like Mario or Legend of Zelda, you can jump from roughly a fifty foot cliff, then do some button combination and land without a scratch. So there you have it, you can't blame M-rated game mechanics and say that the violence persuaded you to do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemaster
This is what our society is becoming, and this more violent change is being lead on by both video games, and the media's negative light on life. Banning, or atleast restricting or sensoring, some of the more overly violent games, I believe, are the way to go. Yes, I won't be happy about this change, and yes, my friends won't be happy about this change, but small steps need to be taken, to make this society less violent, lest your chiildren, or even our children, when we get there, become even worse. Which, if we keep going the way we are, god knows they will. Banning overly violent video games won't automatically make things better, but it's a start, and all things to start somewhere.
We DO censor the sale already... Hello? ESRB? The retail stores and 80%? Yeah, we understand there are some video games out there that are a terrible influence on the lives of today's children. But what you keep on forgetting is that the entire argument you're supposed to be making is that we should criminalize the sale of these games to minors. Well, you haven't really done that yet. All I've heard you say so far has been "Omg, Chinese escalator, blood and gore are in M-rated games, society is stupid!" Should I applaud you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokemaster
Also, quoting because I think it's right and somewhat supports my point a little bit .
In reference to Jr's quote, like Alaska already said, they would most likely end up being normal people like you and I. You love these games and don't go out shooting everyone up. Jr loves these games and doesn't go out shooting everyone up. Alaska loves these games and doesn't go out shooting everyone up (or at least not yet).

The fact of the matter is, the behavioral issues that we see within today's adolescents should not be 100% contributed to negatively influential video games. There's a whole world out there with much worse influences such as racism and sexism. Criminalizing the sale of M-rated games to minors would only mean more policemen on patrol where they shouldn't be. It wouldn't stop parents and older siblings from going out and purchasing the games for the younger ones any more than what already exists. I can't think of a cool closer to this post so I'll just wait to hammer you guys some more.
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987

Last edited by TheEvilDookie; 07-08-2011 at 03:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-07-2011, 02:28 PM
The pokemaster's Avatar
The pokemaster Offline
PE2K Website Staff
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hiding from everything
Posts: 1,133
Send a message via AIM to The pokemaster Send a message via Skype™ to The pokemaster
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by alaskapidove View Post
You know, when I see news stories about people overdosing on drugs and alcohol, it makes me NOT want to do them. The media reports negative things because they get more viewers that way. Technology has always been villainized by the media. It used to be TV and rock and roll, now its rap, the internet, and video games. Also, as for movies giving teenagers the wrong impressions... ever seen Requiem for a Dream or Leaving Las Vegas? Those movies make drinking and drugs look like ever so much fun. :b Some video games, like Grand Theft Auto that portray the character drinking/doing drugs, clearly make it known that the main character isn't a good dude. Or if you play LA Noir, it's the criminals doping up. Either way, most kids are able to distinguish between real life and make believe. Nobody's going to start drinking or shooting up just because they saw it happen in a video game or movie.
I could've worded that better. I'm not saying that people are going to go play CoD, and then pick up a machine gun and start shooting people, which is silly. What I'm trying to say is that violent video games create a more violent impression in people. People play games like this all the time because they start to enjoy the violence. Even if there are certain parts of certain games that appeal to different people, almost everyone is attracted to the violence of these games. And playing violent games over and over, because you love the violence, will lead to people becoming more violent towards others.


Quote:
You're telling me that you jumped off a roof, because you're used to being able to do it in video games and weren't afraid of getting hurt? That sounds like a personal problem, bro. Most people don't go around jumping off of buildings or running in front of cars because they saw it happen in a video game. As for desensitization from death... That can almost be a good thing, as long as you know not to go killing people. I've had to hold animals while they get put to sleep and that nature. Crying all over the place wouldn't have helped things. Maybe it would be better for our culture if we didn't flip out every time something died. As long as we still value human life, which I don't think video games have the power to change, seeing as they're made of pixels, not flesh and bones
Quote:
As for jumping off a roof because you saw it done in a video game, that's not to blame on games like COD. In fact, in some cases on COD, if you jump from a two story building and landed on your feet, you could die. But in real life, if you did the same, you would most likely just break a leg or two. But then when you look at something like Mario or Legend of Zelda, you can jump from roughly a fifty foot cliff, then do some button combination and land without a scratch. So there you have it, you can't blame M-rated game mechanics and say that the violence persuaded you to do the same.
You both mis-interpreted me. We jumped off the roof because we were being idiots and trying to have some fun. We didn't get up from a round of CoD and decide to do it because we just did it on our game. I'm saying that perhaps if we weren't into so many games in which jumping off rooves have no repercussions, our subconscious wouldn't be so eager to go for it, but it's not like we did it because we saw Mario do it. Otherwise I'd be crawling up pipes and jumping on every second animal I see. But it was just an example from personal experience. My point is that doing/seeing things enough on video games starts to create ideas in your subconscious, just like everything else. You might not see it in yourself, or others, but everyone changes, and a lot of things influence them. And chances are, with the abundance of video games around, that video games may be a part of this change.


Quote:
I've shot and cleaned out animals in real life, though the largest was a deer rather than a horse.... Still, I'm pretty well balanced. Tons of people take their kids hunting and they usually don't end up being serial killers.
And a good amount of those kids have probably grown up around things like hunting, and don't see it as much of a big deal as other people might. Kids who have grown up around shooting and skinning animals would likely be absolutely fine with it. But you can't tell me that because some kids have grown up around it, all other kids will automatically be fine with it, and that it's not going to come out without any repercussions.


Quote:
If video games are adapting to be more violent because the consumers are already violent, how are they making an impact? If the consumers are already killing people....
Because they go hand-in-hand. Violent games are made, people gradually get more violent, more violent games are made, and so on. It's not just games, though. Movies, books, everything of the sort. Video games are just a part of this.


Quote:
Natural Selection. Caching. I'm kidding, of course, but give me some examples of people who have screwed up their life or managed to kill themselves because of something they saw in a video game or even on a movie or TV show, where that person wasn't already in a bad situation.
Again, I could've worded better. I'm not saying that someone will shoot someone because they did it on GTA or whatever, I was trying to say that negative, and more violent influences, can, and likely will, lead people to making somewhat stupid decisions that they might regret later.


Quote:
If kids are as impressionable as you say, then why are there not kids trying to shove themselves down green pipes, running at high speeds and trying to break stuff by doing multiple flips in the air, or anything else from popular game franchises?
Because, even to young minds of children, there's an obvious difference between a cartoonish plumber jumping around like a circus freak, smashing things with his head and stomping on two-legged turtles, and a realistic shooter game like GTA, where it's set in a world just like the real world, with characters just like in the real world, with people doing realistic things like in the real world, and graphics looking realistic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEvilDookie View Post
Just because it happened in the United States doesn't mean it isn't a controversial topic. Open your mind a little bit.
That did sound a bit close-minded of me, didn't it? Again, I apologise at how I worded it, I could've made that a lot clearer. America and Australia are two different countries, and while I can go and look up about American issues, I'm not American. I don't, and can't, see from the point of view of an American like yourself, towards a matter I only know about from a little research about the topic. Not to mention there would be likely a large amount of events connected to that, which I would know little about. I don't like discussing major affairs based in other countries, because no matter how much I researched, there would be another twenty sides to the issue I would not be able to see, and I wouldn't be able to provide much of a valid contribution. But that's just me.


Quote:
You say this as if you're in totally in support of the proposed law, but in reality, you probably went straight back to playing these inappropriate games therefore making you a hypocrite in your argument. But anyways, to keep the discussion going, yes, violent video games are worse than violent movies. Why do I get the feeling that I'm beginning to repeat myself? If you read the earlier part of the debate, you would have seen that I pointed out that retail stores refrain from selling M-rated games to minors 80% of the time while movie theaters do a crappy job of 45%. And wtf are you talking about in the second half of your paragraph? Stay on topic, lol. Nobody cares about some Chinese dude drinking on an escalator at a fashion show. It's totally irrelevant to the question.
Yes, it's totally irrelevant to the question, but not to my point. My point is referring to bad influences, which can be brought about by video games. CAN. Video games alone, are not the sole reason why I believe people are getting more violent. There is also the media, and that, but video games are a part of this. I think this ban is a needed precaution that should be taken, and a good beginning to other restrictions that may need to come.


Quote:
Okay... you just explained why some games are rated M... What does that have to do with criminalizing the sale? Are teenagers running around doing those sort of things to each other? No, they aren't. Sorry, but you should go throw that whole paragraph in the trash.
Really, think about it. M ratings are there for a reason, not just "lol dis gaem haz gunz and stoof lts maek it m ratez trollolol", and that's basically what my "trash" is doing. It's explaining exactly why these things have such ratings, and why they are needed. Games with overly violent references are given these ratings so younger children avoid games like this, and banning is just the next step above that, which may be necessary.

I agree, you can't shelter kids from the real world and stuff, but there's also no need to unnecessarily expose them to violent influences. The first years in someone's life, their childhood, needs to be spent developing their minds positively. They don't need overly violent games, which encourage violence. It's not telling kids to just go out, steal a car, burn down a house and shoot some people, but it's still encouraging violence, and it's still instilling a sense of right towards violence in their heads, when they don't know much better. Which is why the M rating exists, so children don't play these games. Except children are going ahead and playing them excessively anyway, partially because of parents. So banning them being sold is just the next step. And maybe banning the sale of these games to minors would make a few parent's realise that letting young children play violent games like CoD isn't the greatest idea.


Quote:
In reference to Jr's quote, like Alaska already said, they would most likely end up being normal people like you and I. You love these games and don't go out shooting everyone up. Jr loves these games and doesn't go out shooting everyone up. Alaska loves these games and doesn't go out shooting everyone up (or at least not yet).
Yes, we all don't go out shooting everyone. I can't speak for any of you, as I wouldn't know, but I can tell you that I wasn't raised with overly violent videogames like CoD from a young age. I was raised on Pokemon, and Crash Bandicoot, and other innocent games like that. Yet, I have a couple of five year old cousins who already love playing CoD, and won't go near most of the games aimed at younger children, and they've both picked up swearing, which I know they've picked up from M rated games. I'm aware that this may be a unique case, but I find it unlikely. Children are being brought up with more violent games, and in a more violent society than we were, so you can't really compare what our children might be like to us. I'm also not saying that all your children will be horrible, violent little things, just that their generation as a whole, will likely be more violent than us.


Quote:
Hey look, I was right about you being a hypocrite about the matter seeing as how you just openly admitted the "loving these games." You're just taking the side of pro-ban because you either find it easier to argue for or because you actually have never played these games and are truly against them. I'll go with the former for your case. The same goes for Jr because I know enough about him to say that.
Nice attitude. But, you know what? Yes, I love these games. Every time I go to my friend's house, we play CoD Black Ops for hours. I've spent good portions of my day playing games like Red Dead Redemption and Halo. Why? Because I enjoy them. I find them fun. I never used to find these games fun. I can't sit here, and tell you why I now find them fun, when I never used to. There might me a many number of reasons for it. But I find them fun. It might be because a friend introduced me to Halo many years ago, it might just be growing older, it could be a miriad of reasons. And maybe I am a hypocrite. I don't think so, but maybe I am. But for you to sit there, and say that I'm not allowed to have a genuine opinion just because I like these games, isn't right.

I shouldn't have to be automatically supporting these games because I like them. I can't help that I like them. I can't just wake up tomorrow and decide to hate these games. I find them fun, and probably will for a while. But, that shouldn't take away my right to speak freely, and to express my opinion of these games. I should be allowed to have an open mind about video games. I should be allowed to express how I feel they may be doing a lot of harm. I should be allowed and support the banning of violent games being sold to minors because I think it's the right thing to do. I should be allowed to sit here, and disagree with you all, about how I believe something needs to be done about these games as a start for society to become a little less violent. And if that makes you think I'm a hypocrite, then so be it. I like these games, but I can see why there should be more restrictions.


Quote:
The fact of the matter is, the behavioral issues that we see within today's adolescents should not be 100% contributed to negatively influential video games. There's a whole world out there with much worse influences such as racism and sexism. Criminalizing the sale of M-rated games to minors would only mean more policemen on patrol where they shouldn't be. It wouldn't stop parents and older siblings from going out and purchasing the games for the younger ones any more than what already exists. I can't think of a cool closer to this post so I'll just wait to hammer you guys some more.
That's exactly it. These video games aren't the one and only reason as to why this is happening. Yes, there are a lot more serious issues to worry about in the real world. But children nowadays will be introduced to video games a lot earlier than they will to racism and sexism, and video games have become a major contributing factor. And I hardly doubt the amount of thirteen year old children stealing games will go up, I really do. If anything, that exactly, goes to show what these things are doing. I know, for sure, that I wouldn't of thought of stealing games, ever, in my life, yet, you think that violent video games being banned is encouraging theft? Where do you think they get these ideas of stealing the games then? Society, as a whole. Which is contributed to, by said banned video games.

Please tell me why wouldn't it stop parents from buying games for their children? Half the time, people don't even pay attention to ratings on games. Yet, if these games were to be banned from being sold to minors, that obviously says something about these games. And a lot of people will realise that if stores won't sell said games to minors, then obviously, they aren't supposed to have them. It's exactly the same as alcohol. I'm not comparing games to alcohol, but it's similiar principals. These games have themes and references that young children shouldn't be exposed to, yet, simply having warnings isn't enough to stop it.

A sign saying "do not enter" will stop a few people from going in somewhere, if that's where they wanted to go, but not many. But a wall will stop you in your tracks, and few may try to, and succeed to, get over the wall, but most will give up and go home. That's what this is. The ratings are the sign. They are warning you that you shouldn't go ahead, warning you that these games aren't appropriate for young children. But the banning, it will be the wall. Many people will realise that they obviously aren't allowed to go into the area, and that these banned games are banned because young children can't deal with the negative references.

Just saying, ratings are there for a good reason. Yet, people, and indeed young children, continue to buy them. If they ban these games, some people will stop buying them. That's why I used that reference. A national ban on certain games for young children is a lot more hindering than a few stickers and banners saying these games aren't recommended.
__________________

^URPG Stats^
Banner/Avi by Blue Dragon of BMGf
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:20 PM
-Pichu Boy-'s Avatar
-Pichu Boy- Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The land of tea and fish 'n' chips
Posts: 3,959
Send a message via AIM to -Pichu Boy-
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Okay, being away from this for a day makes you lose track, and I don't have the attention span to read everything, so I'm out. However, just one thing I picked up on while skim-reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jr Trainer View Post
Video games do not have this effect. Centuries from now they will not show how the world was or represent anything.
Au contraire. If anything the same could be said for art. Using the Mona Lisa as an example, since you already brought it up, what is that telling the world now? That there used to be a woman who had no eyebrows and barely smiled? If we were judging just from the content of the painting itself, then yes, that's the impression it could quite easily put across. I look at it and think "What is the actual point of this?".

However, the reason it tells us so much is the construction behind it. We can use it to identify what tools and paints were around when Van Gogh painted it, just as people would be able to in 100 years time. The same goes for video games. They can tell future generations about the technology we had, and how what we use now might be considered primitive in the future. They can say "Oh, they've used this processor" or "Wow, their understanding of polygons was abysmal compared to ours" or whatever it is techno-geeks are interested in. Also, the content itself can also say a lot. It's not far from the truth to say "These war games are a reflection of what's going on every day in other countries". In the future, they might look back and think "Were we really this barbaric?" and strictly speaking, it wouldn't be lying to say "Yes".

So, yes, while Final Fantasy is exactly what it says on the tin (a fantasy game, with elements of fiction), it can still tell future generations about our culture. Video games can be a medium of expressing oneself, and who are we to sugar-coat it to try and protect our kids when really, we're just giving them a false sense of what the world is REALLY like?
__________________
URPG | ASB
MK + Trainer17 = Evil twins | MK + Leo = BFFs
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-08-2011, 12:24 AM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by The pokemaster View Post
That did sound a bit close-minded of me, didn't it? Again, I apologise at how I worded it, I could've made that a lot clearer. America and Australia are two different countries, and while I can go and look up about American issues, I'm not American. I don't, and can't, see from the point of view of an American like yourself, towards a matter I only know about from a little research about the topic. Not to mention there would be likely a large amount of events connected to that, which I would know little about. I don't like discussing major affairs based in other countries, because no matter how much I researched, there would be another twenty sides to the issue I would not be able to see, and I wouldn't be able to provide much of a valid contribution. But that's just me.
Again, it doesn't matter if it's in America. Imagine, in your country, someone trying to make it illegal to sell M-rated games to minors. And give your opinion. The whole ramble on "Well I'm not American, so UGHNHNGNNN" is completely unnecessary anyway.

Quote:
Yes, it's totally irrelevant to the question, but not to my point. My point is referring to bad influences, which can be brought about by video games. CAN. Video games alone, are not the sole reason why I believe people are getting more violent. There is also the media, and that, but video games are a part of this. I think this ban is a needed precaution that should be taken, and a good beginning to other restrictions that may need to come.
Anything CAN influence bad behavior. Video games are no more than a tiny percentage of all that do. So by saying the media is also a poor influence on today's youth, then from your argument, you in support of restricting the media from the general public as well. That's stupid, simply because people have a right to free speech and the freedom of press. You can't put a restriction on either.

Quote:
Really, think about it. M ratings are there for a reason, not just "lol dis gaem haz gunz and stoof lts maek it m ratez trollolol", and that's basically what my "trash" is doing. It's explaining exactly why these things have such ratings, and why they are needed. Games with overly violent references are given these ratings so younger children avoid games like this, and banning is just the next step above that, which may be necessary.

I agree, you can't shelter kids from the real world and stuff, but there's also no need to unnecessarily expose them to violent influences. The first years in someone's life, their childhood, needs to be spent developing their minds positively. They don't need overly violent games, which encourage violence. It's not telling kids to just go out, steal a car, burn down a house and shoot some people, but it's still encouraging violence, and it's still instilling a sense of right towards violence in their heads, when they don't know much better. Which is why the M rating exists, so children don't play these games. Except children are going ahead and playing them excessively anyway, partially because of parents. So banning them being sold is just the next step. And maybe banning the sale of these games to minors would make a few parent's realise that letting young children play violent games like CoD isn't the greatest idea.
This made me chuckle. You expect a child age five or younger to be capable of playing a violent game, let along comprehend what's happening before their eyes, if they sit in front of a screen with a controller in their hands? That's ridiculous and you know it.

"Which is why the M rating exists, so children don't play these games." Well duh... I've said that countless times already. But you miss the point yet again. The way that the majority of these underage players get a hold of these games is from their parents or older siblings purchasing the games for them. A huge portion of the nation is so ignorant when it comes to the news that this new law wouldn't have any mental impact on the buyers because they would have never been aware. The people who would be most affected by the new law if it were to ever pass would be the retail store employees. And as a result, all that would happen would be the managers cracking down more on the cashiers, telling them not to sell M-rated games to minors, and guess what? They already do that.

Quote:
Yes, we all don't go out shooting everyone. I can't speak for any of you, as I wouldn't know, but I can tell you that I wasn't raised with overly violent videogames like CoD from a young age. I was raised on Pokemon, and Crash Bandicoot, and other innocent games like that. Yet, I have a couple of five year old cousins who already love playing CoD, and won't go near most of the games aimed at younger children, and they've both picked up swearing, which I know they've picked up from M rated games. I'm aware that this may be a unique case, but I find it unlikely. Children are being brought up with more violent games, and in a more violent society than we were, so you can't really compare what our children might be like to us. I'm also not saying that all your children will be horrible, violent little things, just that their generation as a whole, will likely be more violent than us.
Read my last argument pertaining to this... Some silly law like this will never stop children from getting their hands on those games. Just because on person who meets the age requirement purchases a violent game, that doesn't imply that they would be the only one to play it. Sorry, but whatever happens in the world you will always hear those annoying high pitched voices on XBL.

Quote:
Nice attitude. But, you know what? Yes, I love these games. Every time I go to my friend's house, we play CoD Black Ops for hours. I've spent good portions of my day playing games like Red Dead Redemption and Halo. Why? Because I enjoy them. I find them fun. I never used to find these games fun. I can't sit here, and tell you why I now find them fun, when I never used to. There might me a many number of reasons for it. But I find them fun. It might be because a friend introduced me to Halo many years ago, it might just be growing older, it could be a miriad of reasons. And maybe I am a hypocrite. I don't think so, but maybe I am. But for you to sit there, and say that I'm not allowed to have a genuine opinion just because I like these games, isn't right.

I shouldn't have to be automatically supporting these games because I like them. I can't help that I like them. I can't just wake up tomorrow and decide to hate these games. I find them fun, and probably will for a while. But, that shouldn't take away my right to speak freely, and to express my opinion of these games. I should be allowed to have an open mind about video games. I should be allowed to express how I feel they may be doing a lot of harm. I should be allowed and support the banning of violent games being sold to minors because I think it's the right thing to do. I should be allowed to sit here, and disagree with you all, about how I believe something needs to be done about these games as a start for society to become a little less violent. And if that makes you think I'm a hypocrite, then so be it. I like these games, but I can see why there should be more restrictions.
Hey, thanks for supporting my argument. You should be allowed to enjoy these games without the intervention of the government. And I bet you if the law making bodies criminalized the sale of violent video games like the ones you love, then you would find another means of gaining access to them.

Quote:
That's exactly it. These video games aren't the one and only reason as to why this is happening. Yes, there are a lot more serious issues to worry about in the real world. But children nowadays will be introduced to video games a lot earlier than they will to racism and sexism, and video games have become a major contributing factor. And I hardly doubt the amount of thirteen year old children stealing games will go up, I really do. If anything, that exactly, goes to show what these things are doing. I know, for sure, that I wouldn't of thought of stealing games, ever, in my life, yet, you think that violent video games being banned is encouraging theft? Where do you think they get these ideas of stealing the games then? Society, as a whole. Which is contributed to, by said banned video games.
You just said the rate of stealing won't go up but then you said that's what video games were teaching? Lolwut, sure.

Quote:
Please tell me why wouldn't it stop parents from buying games for their children? Half the time, people don't even pay attention to ratings on games. Yet, if these games were to be banned from being sold to minors, that obviously says something about these games. And a lot of people will realise that if stores won't sell said games to minors, then obviously, they aren't supposed to have them. It's exactly the same as alcohol. I'm not comparing games to alcohol, but it's similiar principals. These games have themes and references that young children shouldn't be exposed to, yet, simply having warnings isn't enough to stop it.
Read what I said before. "A huge portion of the nation is so ignorant when it comes to the news that this new law wouldn't have any mental impact on the buyers because they would have never been aware."

Quote:
A sign saying "do not enter" will stop a few people from going in somewhere, if that's where they wanted to go, but not many. But a wall will stop you in your tracks, and few may try to, and succeed to, get over the wall, but most will give up and go home. That's what this is. The ratings are the sign. They are warning you that you shouldn't go ahead, warning you that these games aren't appropriate for young children. But the banning, it will be the wall. Many people will realise that they obviously aren't allowed to go into the area, and that these banned games are banned because young children can't deal with the negative references.
No... It won't stop them... because the buyers wouldn't care. You can't criminalize the consumption of playing a video game because you can't prove who was playing. It's different from alcohol in that way and that's why it wouldn't stop the current buyers.

Quote:
Just saying, ratings are there for a good reason. Yet, people, and indeed young children, continue to buy them. If they ban these games, some people will stop buying them. That's why I used that reference. A national ban on certain games for young children is a lot more hindering than a few stickers and banners saying these games aren't recommended.
Children aren't the main purchasers. Adults are and then they give it to the children. All this bill would do would stop at MAX, that other 20% children that try to buy the games. That's so minuscule when you look at how most of them find their ways of playing anyway.

Edit:

Here's a great source to look at how often children are thwarted when it comes to buying M-rated games. That 20% I mentioned was the worst that it comes to in Walmart. The average actually appears to be 13%.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...-purchases.ars
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987

Last edited by TheEvilDookie; 07-08-2011 at 04:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-08-2011, 11:49 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Dookie
This made me chuckle. You expect a child age five or younger to be capable of playing a violent game, let along comprehend what's happening before their eyes, if they sit in front of a screen with a controller in their hands? That's ridiculous and you know it.

"Which is why the M rating exists, so children don't play these games." Well duh... I've said that countless times already. But you miss the point yet again. The way that the majority of these underage players get a hold of these games is from their parents or older siblings purchasing the games for them. A huge portion of the nation is so ignorant when it comes to the news that this new law wouldn't have any mental impact on the buyers because they would have never been aware. The people who would be most affected by the new law if it were to ever pass would be the retail store employees. And as a result, all that would happen would be the managers cracking down more on the cashiers, telling them not to sell M-rated games to minors, and guess what? They already do that.
I agree with everything you just said. No child would be capable playing any M-Rated games. I'm 13 and I still can't play them! I know a lot of my friends shoot at bushes when they play them! Even if the law passed, children would still be able to play the games. They're not the ones who have to buy them, like T.E.D said,

" But you miss the point yet again. The way that the majority of these underage players get a hold of these games is from their parents or older siblings purchasing the games for them."

-and that is very true. I have never in my life seen a child walk in to Game Stop and ask for the Modern Warfare series, the Call of Duty Series, or Bio Shock and what not, and I don't ever expect it to happen around where I live, though I have seen 10 Year olds and above play them. You guys are putting it to where you think children are absolutely stupid. While kids do stupid things, that doesn't mean they are completely out of their mind! And I'm certainly not saying that kids haven't gone out and pretended to be in those games and actually shoot stuff/people, but it's very rare and nothing of the sort would happen that would need a ban such as the one we are debating about.

I agree that these games could negativley affect people, but not drasticly. Maybe a little. Such as they may become more agressive at times or pretend to play "Guns" or something. I've said this time and time, that they wouldn't go off and shoot people. They can't even buy guns for that matter, they'd get them from their parents. And I would hate to see a child in the paper becuase he/she shot himself. Parents need to keep their ammunition to a place the kid couldn't find them, and if that happened, there would be no problem with playing these games. Feel free to dis-agree.
__________________

Last edited by Typhlosion Explosion; 07-08-2011 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-10-2011, 12:11 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

And week two debate is officially closed. Point distribution is as follows:

For the "Against the Ban" side, Alaskapidove earns one point for Team VILE.
For the "For the Ban" side, The Jr Trainer earns one point for Octopus Babies
As a team, The Jr Trainer and TheEvilDookie of Octopus Babies earn two points for their team.

Also, as a side note, while I use examples that may emphasize America, these are only because I'm establishing some relevancy.

And now for something completely different.

Topic 3: Airport security all over the world has become tighter and tighter in attempts to combat extremists who like to blow up planes. However, many argue that these new procedures and regulations are becoming more invasive as well, in particular the full body scanners which view beneath a person's clothes. The question here is, which is more important: security, or privacy. I don't think I need to tell you the sides of this debate.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-10-2011, 05:50 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Team: Ace Trainers Association
For: Security


Clearly security. I'd rather be seen naked by a scanner than be blown up. I mean, such a small price to pay. And what does it matter? I'm sure no one else looks. Those guards have apparently seen many people naked from the scanner, and they probably don't care, because they get paid. There isn't much to say on this, because that's my reasoning. I mean honestly,
Seen naked > Blown Up. It's an obious choice. Although, I can see the privicy part as big, because some are self-concious about there body parts I guess. So, I see it is either they make something that can't see through clothing, but detects bombs and drugs and what not, or just leave it the way it is.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-13-2011, 04:22 PM
-Pichu Boy-'s Avatar
-Pichu Boy- Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The land of tea and fish 'n' chips
Posts: 3,959
Send a message via AIM to -Pichu Boy-
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Ok, I was going to fight for, but since there's only been one reply...

The Cullen
Against

It's a matter of pride for this one. Okay, you might be safe, but sometimes, you're safe with your dignity left on a tetherhook, which can be really demoralising for some people. If you go through the full body scanner, like it or not, you know that the person receiving the image is going to judge you in one way or another, and to be frank, that's not really fair to force people to go through that.

It's also a matter of "what happens to these pictures?". Are they stored, even for a short while? If so, I can see problems with that already. People wouldn't be comfortable with their naked self being stored, because what if the files get hacked? Who knows where they could end up? If they're not stored, and someone managed to slip through the scanner even with drugs hidden, then you can't look back and recheck all the photos more closely, which defeats part of the objective.

If you have a legitimate reason that you suspect someone is carrying illegal goods, then by all means, put them under the body scanner, or strip search them, or whatever. At least then you have a reason to. But, I just don't think it's right to force innocent people who've done nothing to seem suspicious to expose themselves, even if it is just to one person they'll probably never see in their life again.
__________________
URPG | ASB
MK + Trainer17 = Evil twins | MK + Leo = BFFs
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-13-2011, 10:02 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pichu Boy
It's a matter of pride for this one. Okay, you might be safe, but sometimes, you're safe with your dignity left on a tetherhook, which can be really demoralising for some people. If you go through the full body scanner, like it or not, you know that the person receiving the image is going to judge you in one way or another, and to be frank, that's not really fair to force people to go through that.


It's also a matter of "what happens to these pictures?". Are they stored, even for a short while? If so, I can see problems with that already. People wouldn't be comfortable with their naked self being stored, because what if the files get hacked? Who knows where they could end up? If they're not stored, and someone managed to slip through the scanner even with drugs hidden, then you can't look back and recheck all the photos more closely, which defeats part of the objective.
Pride? Less pride than safety. And yes, I agree that that person will judge you, but, so? It's no different than getting a Physical from the doctor. The doctor has seen many people naked because of the physical, and may or may not judge you. Though you may be thinking, "Well I said these photos may be hacked some how." The security is there for a reason, they wouldn't let anyone hack the computer or the photo storer. And the purpose of putting people through is to detect the drugs, because thats why the get pics of you naked. It wouldn't detect drugs if it didn't see you naked, unless they come up with some kind drug detector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pichu Boy
If you have a legitimate reason that you suspect someone is carrying illegal goods, then by all means, put them under the body scanner, or strip search them, or whatever. At least then you have a reason to.
Anyone could carry illegal goods, Dad's of little girls put their drugs in their Daughter's dolls and such most of the time. You can't say, "Aww she's just a little girl, she doesn't carry drugs at all!" Because the Dad put the drugs in her doll or something.

Quote:
But, I just don't think it's right to force innocent people who've done nothing to seem suspicious to expose themselves, even if it is just to one person they'll probably never see in their life again.
They see hundreds and hundreds of people a day, they would forget what each and everyone of them looked like unless they aren't human or something. And honestly, I doubt the company would keep the pictures unless they had a good enouigh reason to, such as they see someone with drugs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 07-14-2011, 10:48 AM
-Pichu Boy-'s Avatar
-Pichu Boy- Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The land of tea and fish 'n' chips
Posts: 3,959
Send a message via AIM to -Pichu Boy-
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny Jolteon View Post
Pride? Less pride than safety. And yes, I agree that that person will judge you, but, so? It's no different than getting a Physical from the doctor. The doctor has seen many people naked because of the physical, and may or may not judge you. Though you may be thinking, "Well I said these photos may be hacked some how." The security is there for a reason, they wouldn't let anyone hack the computer or the photo storer. And the purpose of putting people through is to detect the drugs, because thats why the get pics of you naked. It wouldn't detect drugs if it didn't see you naked, unless they come up with some kind drug detector.
I'm pretty sure (though, I could be wrong), that having a physical exam with your doctor isn't mandatory. You willingly go in there and let the doctor examine you. Also, I'd hope many people would be at least familiar with most of the doctors at their local practice, let alone their "family" doctor. People would feel more comfortable being naked for someone they're acquaninted with than a random stranger at the airport.

I'm sure "no-one will hack us" is the promise of any company's system, but look how that worked out with Microsoft and the PlayStation Network. Anyone is at risk of being hacked, so don't just say "well, the security's there for a reason", because I'm pretty sure that's what the PSN Team thought.

Quote:
Anyone could carry illegal goods, Dad's of little girls put their drugs in their Daughter's dolls and such most of the time. You can't say, "Aww she's just a little girl, she doesn't carry drugs at all!" Because the Dad put the drugs in her doll or something.
The doll would not go through the full body scanner, so the point is moot. The doll would go through the x-ray machine along with other hand luggage, and it's when the dad starts acting nervous as to why it has to, or when the drugs are discovered, that the airport staff should then go "Okay, we're going to have to search you, your daughter and all your luggage".

Besides, the debate isn't about drugs, it's about extremists who blow up planes. The likelihood that people are carrying all their bombs on them is quite low, considering the amount of power you'd need to actually damage a jet enough. Which is why they scan your luggage too. See anything suspicious in your luggage, sure, whisk you away to the full body scanner. But still, don't force people to have to go through it, just be wary of the ones who don't.

Quote:
They see hundreds and hundreds of people a day, they would forget what each and everyone of them looked like unless they aren't human or something. And honestly, I doubt the company would keep the pictures unless they had a good enouigh reason to, such as they see someone with drugs.
It isn't about how many they've seen, it's about the fact that some people would get nervous just from the fact that they've seen them or people they know. What's to stop some corrupt employee taking home the picture of said young girl from the previous example? Even if it's then not stored on the computer at the airport, that picture could end up anywhere in the wrong hands.

There's no way to tell what goes on behind closed doors, which is the thing that would worry so many people.
__________________
URPG | ASB
MK + Trainer17 = Evil twins | MK + Leo = BFFs
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-14-2011, 11:11 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pichu Boy- View Post
I'm pretty sure (though, I could be wrong), that having a physical exam with your doctor isn't mandatory. You willingly go in there and let the doctor examine you. Also, I'd hope many people would be at least familiar with most of the doctors at their local practice, let alone their "family" doctor. People would feel more comfortable being naked for someone they're acquaninted with than a random stranger at the airport.
You choose to walk through an airport, correct? You could always take a Boat or Drive to your destination. And it's advised you be checked out, because of the dangers of Cancer.


Quote:
I'm sure "no-one will hack us" is the promise of any company's system, but look how that worked out with Microsoft and the PlayStation Network. Anyone is at risk of being hacked, so don't just say "well, the security's there for a reason", because I'm pretty sure that's what the PSN Team thought.
You're right here, but the un-likelyhod of the matter is to low for concern.

Quote:
The doll would not go through the full body scanner, so the point is moot. The doll would go through the x-ray machine along with other hand luggage,
The father could hide it on her anywhere. I've heard of women filling their breast implants with drugs. Not to mention, the father could stuff the drugs anywhere on his daughter and anywhere in her body.


Quote:
...and it's when the dad starts acting nervous as to why it has to, or when the drugs are discovered, that the airport staff should then go "Okay, we're going to have to search you, your daughter and all your luggage".
People train themselves so they don't act nervous, not to mention the people that can already hide their emotions. That's how they get away with it.


Quote:
It isn't about how many they've seen, it's about the fact that some people would get nervous just from the fact that they've seen them or people they know. What's to stop some corrupt employee taking home the picture of said young girl from the previous example? Even if it's then not stored on the computer at the airport, that picture could end up anywhere in the wrong hands.
There is also a low chance they'd see anyone they know, and if it were someone they knew, I'm sure they'd trust the person, because you don't "know" strangers.

Quote:
There's no way to tell what goes on behind closed doors, which is the thing that would worry so many people.
I've never been inside an airport, though I'd say that they have an automatic deletion system or someone who manages the photos with a password.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-15-2011, 10:44 AM
-Pichu Boy-'s Avatar
-Pichu Boy- Offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The land of tea and fish 'n' chips
Posts: 3,959
Send a message via AIM to -Pichu Boy-
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiny Jolteon View Post
You choose to walk through an airport, correct? You could always take a Boat or Drive to your destination. And it's advised you be checked out, because of the dangers of Cancer.
Some people have to use planes to get where they want to go. It's pretty unrealistic to get from the UK to the US within a reasonable timeframe on a boat. It's even more unrealistic to get from the UK to Australia within a reasonable timeframe on a boat. Some people's jobs require them to travel to foreign countries.

And yeah, you said it yourself: "advised". As in, not mandatory.

Quote:
You're right here, but the un-likelyhod of the matter is to low for concern.
It's pretty easy to make a statement on the likelihood of something without actually having anything to back you up.

It happened to Microsoft - don't rule it out happening to airports.

Quote:
The father could hide it on her anywhere. I've heard of women filling their breast implants with drugs. Not to mention, the father could stuff the drugs anywhere on his daughter and anywhere in her body.
Again, drugs are irrelevant. But, in this case, I've heard of said women's breast implants exploding along with the drug packets due to the high air pressure. And if an exploding breast isn't suspicious, then I don't know what is.

Quote:
People train themselves so they don't act nervous, not to mention the people that can already hide their emotions. That's how they get away with it.
Even so, that doesn't stop the doll from being spotted. Read the whole quote: "... or when the drugs are discovered". I didn't say being nervous was the only thing that'd warrant a full body search.

Quote:
There is also a low chance they'd see anyone they know, and if it were someone they knew, I'm sure they'd trust the person, because you don't "know" strangers.
You missed what I was saying. I meant the person being scanned might see other people they know being scanned, and worry for that person. So, if the dad and the girl were actually innocent, I'm sure the dad wouldn't be comfortable with his daughter being exposed to a stranger.

Quote:
I've never been inside an airport, though I'd say that they have an automatic deletion system or someone who manages the photos with a password.
I find it unlikely the photos would self-delete, and if they did, it would probably be after being unaccessed for a certain amount of time, or something.

And if that one person is corrupt? You've just given a whole load of photos of naked people, including children, to someone whose intentions might not be what their mother wants to hear. In the wrong hands, those pictures become pornography.
__________________
URPG | ASB
MK + Trainer17 = Evil twins | MK + Leo = BFFs
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-15-2011, 07:09 PM
Typhlosion Explosion's Avatar
Typhlosion Explosion Offline
~Blast Burn
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Bark Town
Posts: 5,956
Send a message via AIM to Typhlosion Explosion Send a message via Skype™ to Typhlosion Explosion
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pichu Boy- View Post
Some people have to use planes to get where they want to go. It's pretty unrealistic to get from the UK to the US within a reasonable timeframe on a boat. It's even more unrealistic to get from the UK to Australia within a reasonable timeframe on a boat. Some people's jobs require them to travel to foreign countries.

And yeah, you said it yourself: "advised". As in, not mandatory.
Timeframe has nothing to do with it. And even if it did, then they could take a boat in a scheduled manner, and arrive on time. And advised doesn't mean you have to do it, it is just recommended. Like not eating a lot of fatty foods is advised, not mandatory.



Quote:
It's pretty easy to make a statement on the likelihood of something without actually having anything to back you up.

It happened to Microsoft - don't rule it out happening to airports.
If you can name one time that it happened, then I'll believe you then. Because once again, I've never been to an airport or heard of one being hacked, so I have no clue of the security.

Quote:
Again, drugs are irrelevant. But, in this case, I've heard of said women's breast implants exploding along with the drug packets due to the high air pressure. And if an exploding breast isn't suspicious, then I don't know what is.
The air pressure is when the plane has lifted off, so security doesn't even matter at that point, in which she got away with it.


Quote:
Even so, that doesn't stop the doll from being spotted. Read the whole quote: "... or when the drugs are discovered". I didn't say being nervous was the only thing that'd warrant a full body search.
In the last quote, the woman wasn't caught becase of breast implants, so the father could have stuck it anywhere in her body. And I'm sure that the security won't check inside her body.


Quote:
You missed what I was saying. I meant the person being scanned might see other people they know being scanned, and worry for that person. So, if the dad and the girl were actually innocent, I'm sure the dad wouldn't be comfortable with his daughter being exposed to a stranger.
But as you said, it is mandatory. Unless they can detect drugs a different way, he is out of luck.



Quote:
I find it unlikely the photos would self-delete, and if they did, it would probably be after being unaccessed for a certain amount of time, or something.

And if that one person is corrupt? You've just given a whole load of photos of naked people, including children, to someone whose intentions might not be what their mother wants to hear. In the wrong hands, those pictures become pornography.
I've give some thought about this, and I'm pretty sure that the scanner doesn't get them as in the way their clothes are off, but gives out lines of their body. Technology isn't that upgraded. And I doubt any pedophile would care much about an outline of a little girls breast, which in most cases, aren't delevolped much yet, if she's still carrying a doll.
__________________

Last edited by Typhlosion Explosion; 07-15-2011 at 07:11 PM. Reason: Adding quotes.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-15-2011, 09:43 PM
TheEvilDookie's Avatar
TheEvilDookie Offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,983
Send a message via AIM to TheEvilDookie Send a message via MSN to TheEvilDookie Send a message via Skype™ to TheEvilDookie
Default Re: [WAR X] Debate Section

Octopus Babies
Pro-security

Security is everything today. It means the health and being of yourself, your friends, and/or your family. The invention of flight has blessed us in ways most people cannot understand. Flight allows the mass transportation of anyone who is financially capable and willing and this consists of those on family vacations, those who seek changes in their life, and business men who constantly travel for the profit of their respective company. And because of all of these fliers, security is a top priority for obvious necessary reasons.

Before I continue, I would like to share some flight statistics regarding plane safety. Statistically, flying has been proven to be the safest form of travel. Of all the airlines in the world, the following statistics come from the years 1985 Ė 2009. The odds of being on a plane where there is an accident on the one of top 25 airlines with the best accident rates are 1 in 5.4 million. The odds of being killed on a plane on one of the top 25 airlines with the best accident rates are 1 in 9.2 million. So first of all, youíre probably not going to die on a plane. Secondly, statistics show that only 9% of all fatal accidents on planes were due to sabotage. In fact the last time there was ever a hijacking on a plane resulting in fatalities anywhere in the world according to these statistics was on the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The last two there were sabotage attacks or explosive device attacks that resulted in fatalities were in Russia in 2004 and in China in 2002. So there you have it, terrorist attacks on planes are extremely unlikely to occur because of the heightened measures of security by airports all over the world. The security protects our lives and if there is ever a technological advance that improves the safety of the passengers, itís worth it.

Now clearly these safety measures through body scans have people in fear that others may obtain these full body scans and either look at them or redistribute them. What you probably donít know is that these x-ray scanned photos reveal is nothing more than a naked ghost-like figure. There are no distinguishable characteristics in these scans and itís not like the security guards sitting behind these monitors look at whoís about to go in and go gaga over a cloudy figure of somebody theyíll never see again. They donít have time to look at whoís about to walk by with the mass amount of passengers waiting to move through the long, congested line. What look for are weapons or drugs. And they actually do a magnificent job at detecting these said items whether theyíre attached to the personís body or inside the personís luggage.

Replies to current arguments:
Quote:
Originally Posted by -pichu boy-
It's a matter of pride for this one. Okay, you might be safe, but sometimes, you're safe with your dignity left on a tetherhook, which can be really demoralising for some people. If you go through the full body scanner, like it or not, you know that the person receiving the image is going to judge you in one way or another, and to be frank, that's not really fair to force people to go through that.
It is not a matter of pride or privacy on this one. It is a matter of the safety of the people. If someone ever says that they would rather die than be seen naked, they would most likely have been exaggerating. Life itself is much too precious to objectifying that you might be seen nude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pichu Boy-
It's also a matter of "what happens to these pictures?". Are they stored, even for a short while? If so, I can see problems with that already. People wouldn't be comfortable with their naked self being stored, because what if the files get hacked? Who knows where they could end up? If they're not stored, and someone managed to slip through the scanner even with drugs hidden, then you can't look back and recheck all the photos more closely, which defeats part of the objective.
They get stored in some huge database of the airport that no one really bothers to look into for personal interest. The only time they would be looked at for legitimate reasons (other than on the spot security) would be to know when somebody with a weapon or drugs walked through then compare the body of the criminal to the image. If they were released to the public, they would serve no value other than those who were caught with illegal possessions. And if the database were to be hacked, like I previously stated earlier, the images seen would only portray a ghostly figure of the person who walked through at that moment. There are no clear details of anyone who walks through the scanners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Pichu Boy-
Besides, the debate isn't about drugs, it's about extremists who blow up planes. The likelihood that people are carrying all their bombs on them is quite low, considering the amount of power you'd need to actually damage a jet enough. Which is why they scan your luggage too. See anything suspicious in your luggage, sure, whisk you away to the full body scanner. But still, don't force people to have to go through it, just be wary of the ones who don't.
I truly hope you realize that ever since the 9/11 attacks, the heightened awareness of security all around the world has caused an extreme drop in terrorist attacks and attempts. With 3 only successful attacks worldwide from hijackers or bombers, the reason itís so low is because of all these new additions to security. Otherwise, the chances of death would be so much higher.

So as a closing statement letís review the facts.
1. The chances of you dying on an airplane ride due to a terrorist attack are extremely rare.
2. When proceeding through a full body scanner, it isnít like anybody can recognize who you are.

http://www.newsoxy.com/travel/what-a...see-26521.html
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=2
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm
__________________


^ Anastasia-R ^
Current VPP: Palkia > Level 100: 6987
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com