@Alex_Murphy said:
"
@Snipzor said:
"
Okay, I heard the first part in which he says it is fantasy and faked. Well that's horseshit, because it promotes this kind of behaviour. It doesn't matter if it is virtual, it promotes this kind of behaviour, despite the fact that it is virtual. Horseshit, the idea that is presented doesn't work when deviant behaviour has its own aura of acceptance.But the real bullshit thing he said was detected when he said "Thought Crime". I'm sorry, but that's the same argument used against hate crime legislation. Something people like Penn don't understand is that "thought crime" like this can end up with a dead body hanging from a fence. The argument is not only stupid, but downright dangerous.
"
You say that this can end up with a dead body, but what are the chances of that? Out of everybody that plays the game what percentage of the people will go out and rape somebody? I'm not interested in the game myself, but I'm confident that if I did play it I wouldn't hurt anybody as a result. A very small percentage of people who played Doom ended up going on a killing spree. But it was a groundbreaking game that pushed the FPS genre into the spotlight. So should everybody should be denied the opportunity to go to hell and fight demons? The only reason I care about people saying this game should be banned is that the same exact arguments could be used against violent video games, and I do like to play those. At least to the extent that if I shoot somebody point blank in the head I should see blood.
"
No, the dead body claim is in response to the use of the term "Thought Crime", a term everyone here should hate as much as I do, if it were possible. See the outrage towards the pushing of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill, only one single collective reaction, and it is the use of the term "Thought Crime". It is intellectually dishonest to say that we are prosecuting this bullshit notion of thought crime. I'm sorry if I'm a little pissed off, someone used the same argument towards my own experience. I have not yet been over it since.
Now, my argument is that the defense of this kind of filth is the promotion of deviant behaviour. Violence and sex in games is fine, but the personal interaction is the problem. There is a fine line between the relief of those feelings of violence or fetish, and the promotion of it. The fact that there are people (And without shock, here come the libertarians to meet with my expectations) defending the existence of this kind of filth, does not lend well to the sociological downgrading of rapists and pedophiles. I'm being slightly hyberbolic here, but at the same time the point remains.
But you say to yourself, and if it isn't you, it is someone else. "What about games like Manhunt? Postal?", well those games aren't meant for the violent, they are meant to be satirical looks at out culture. Games like RapeLay, well they are designed for the ones they are marketing towards in the title itself.
Doom, one of the better games at the time, is also meant for entertainment anyone can pick up. Doom isn't porn, simple as that. Aggression does decrease during "Simulated Violence", fact, there is nothing to deny that. But sexual urges is another thing, which is completely different. Like a drug, the urges don't leave the system after usage, you will always have the urges. Urges and aggression are two completely different things. Do we appease sexual deviants by allowing this game to be their means of draining those urges? No, we don't, there are better ways and we have had access to those ways for a long time, a game like this only puts everything in a Stasis.
This isn't about the posibilities of them mirrorring games, this is about reinforcement.
