Video Games are dangerous
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Given that this happend only a few days after the VT shootings, it is understandable prudence.
No, it isn't. It is a complete overreaction in an effort to appear to be doing "something" no matter how inane it is. This accomplishes nothing, just like the idiotic practices instituted after 9/11 -- the random searches while in line, needing an ID at 3 or 4 different places, both of which they've stopped, but now there's idiocy with the liquids (guess what, if you put it in your pocket instead of your carry on they won't know). 10 years ago I made a Quake map that was based on our office, complete with cubicles and monsters working in each one. I played it with my boss (whose office was occupied by some demon that I shot with a shotgun), and it was fun.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
10 years ago I made a Quake map that was based on our office, complete with cubicles and monsters working in each one. I played it with my boss (whose office was occupied by some demon that I shot with a shotgun), and it was fun.
Unfortunantly, the issue isn't about you. It is about tens of thousands of people in positions of authority making thousands of decisions effecting the security of thousands of other people. What do you think the probability might be that some of those decisions are going to appear to be 'over reactions'? And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
David Kentley wrote:
No there isn't.
Yes there is and denying that obvious fact will just result in more young people slaughtered in feasts of nihilistic delight.
Red Stateler wrote:
denying that obvious fact
You claiming it is obvious means "It came straight out of my ass, did you not notice!?"
-
To quote from one of the responses to the local newspaer editorial (lined to by the article you linked): "We put our administrators in a “no win” situation. Take pre-emptive action and you are over-reacting and stomping on individual’s rights. Take no action and something tragic happens and you will be crucified for not taking prudent precautions. Welcome to the world we now live in." Given that this happend only a few days after the VT shootings, it is understandable prudence.
Rob Graham wrote:
Given that this happend only a few days after the VT shootings, it is understandable prudence.
It would be more prudent to arrest all those who own handguns. I agree however that it would've been prudent NOT to have made that CS map. Still nowhere near cause for an arrest. Prudently speaking that is.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
denying that obvious fact
You claiming it is obvious means "It came straight out of my ass, did you not notice!?"
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
You claiming it is obvious means "It came straight out of my ass, did you not notice!?"
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
You claiming it is obvious means "It came straight out of my ass, did you not notice!?"
Or it could just mean that I'm not so completely self-diluted with my religious beliefs (in your case, atheism) that I'll turn a blind eye to the fact that the revised separation of church and state clause arose in the 1960s, which was when these nihilistic school shootings began. If you look at the various cases, you'll notice that the common thread among them is nihilism and a resentment of others without any regard. Those two things are perfectly logical conclusions derived from atheism.
-
So then these are the steps? 1. Mankind makes guns and uses them responsibly for self defense for hundreds of years. 2. Secular humanism enters the scene and destroys purpose by instilling nihilism into children. 3. These children express that nihilism through violence. 4. Take away the guns. So we know the source of the violence, but your solution is to remove the means and keep firmly in place the secular humanistic nihilism that drives these kids to this? It seems to me that you solve problems by addressing them directly, not by simply removing the means.
Red Stateler wrote:
1. Mankind makes guns and uses them responsibly for self defense for hundreds of years.
Where do you get this "self-defense" crap? They were invented to kill; either other men in battle or animals for food. You should definitely take away the handgun/pistol, it's like TV - life does in fact go on without it. Strange how guns are legal but certain plants aren't :doh:
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
You claiming it is obvious means "It came straight out of my ass, did you not notice!?"
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
You claiming it is obvious means "It came straight out of my ass, did you not notice!?"
Or it could just mean that I'm not so completely self-diluted with my religious beliefs (in your case, atheism) that I'll turn a blind eye to the fact that the revised separation of church and state clause arose in the 1960s, which was when these nihilistic school shootings began. If you look at the various cases, you'll notice that the common thread among them is nihilism and a resentment of others without any regard. Those two things are perfectly logical conclusions derived from atheism.
-
David Kentley wrote:
10 years ago I made a Quake map that was based on our office, complete with cubicles and monsters working in each one. I played it with my boss (whose office was occupied by some demon that I shot with a shotgun), and it was fun.
Unfortunantly, the issue isn't about you. It is about tens of thousands of people in positions of authority making thousands of decisions effecting the security of thousands of other people. What do you think the probability might be that some of those decisions are going to appear to be 'over reactions'? And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Red Stateler wrote:
1. Mankind makes guns and uses them responsibly for self defense for hundreds of years.
Where do you get this "self-defense" crap? They were invented to kill; either other men in battle or animals for food. You should definitely take away the handgun/pistol, it's like TV - life does in fact go on without it. Strange how guns are legal but certain plants aren't :doh:
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Where do you get this "self-defense" crap? They were invented to kill; either other men in battle or animals for food.
Sometimes you need to kill in order to defend yourself. The Bill of Rights in the United States is designed to ensure that the people are vested with certain rights that are necessary for the maintenance of democracy. For example, freedom of speech is intended to ensure that the majority doesn't restrain the minority from political involvement. The second amendment ensures that the people can protect themselves from an uninvolved or overinvolved government. The fact that Europe has extensive restrictions on guns and legislation designed to imprison people over certain political speech is probably not a coincidence.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
You should definitely take away the handgun/pistol, it's like TV - life does in fact go on without it. Strange how guns are legal but certain plants aren't
But why? Guns were never a problem until atheism's influence expanded in the 1960's. Are you saying that we should address problems by ignoring the cause and removing the means? That is what Europe is doing with its holocause speech laws. Rather than address the rampant anti-semitism in Europe, they're removing the means to express it. That's the path towards totalitarianism and cultural decline...Not a solution.
-
David Kentley wrote:
10 years ago I made a Quake map that was based on our office, complete with cubicles and monsters working in each one. I played it with my boss (whose office was occupied by some demon that I shot with a shotgun), and it was fun.
Unfortunantly, the issue isn't about you. It is about tens of thousands of people in positions of authority making thousands of decisions effecting the security of thousands of other people. What do you think the probability might be that some of those decisions are going to appear to be 'over reactions'? And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfortunantly, the issue isn't about you. It is about tens of thousands of people in positions of authority making thousands of decisions effecting the security of thousands of other people. What do you think the probability might be that some of those decisions are going to appear to be 'over reactions'? And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
Unfortunately, the issue isn't about any sort of sane measures that may have been taken slightly overboard. It's about a school going completely overboard and having a student arrested on charges of terrorism because he made a map for a game and he owned a hammer. When that wouldn't stick they instead expelled him. Heaven help him if somewhere in his house he had a box of nails; he'd be on death row.
-
David Kentley wrote:
10 years ago I made a Quake map that was based on our office, complete with cubicles and monsters working in each one. I played it with my boss (whose office was occupied by some demon that I shot with a shotgun), and it was fun.
Unfortunantly, the issue isn't about you. It is about tens of thousands of people in positions of authority making thousands of decisions effecting the security of thousands of other people. What do you think the probability might be that some of those decisions are going to appear to be 'over reactions'? And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
I've always believed that if we want to live in a free society, there are some risks that go with it. Everyone wants to blame someone for what happened at VT, but the fact is that no one really did anything wrong, except for the nutjob himself. The only thing that could've prevented it would've been luck or violations of civil rights that would equate to living in a police state. On the same day as the VT shootings, about 160 people in Iraq died due to random bombings. 5 times the worst massacre in US history, and it's hardly even news because things are so screwed up over there. They are already living in a police state, and it's not preventing nuts who want to die from taking down others with them. I'd rather take my chances with the freedom we have than worry about me or someone I love being taken down by something that has about 1/1000th the chance of happening as being killed in a car accident.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Given that this happend only a few days after the VT shootings, it is understandable prudence.
It would be more prudent to arrest all those who own handguns. I agree however that it would've been prudent NOT to have made that CS map. Still nowhere near cause for an arrest. Prudently speaking that is.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I agree however that it would've been prudent NOT to have made that CS map.
Only because of the general level of paranoia. Back in the day, we made Doom / C&C maps of everything. Because, seriously, who hasn't wanted to run through their local mall, etc., with a chainsaw... ...point is, he made a frickin' map. For a computer game. What's next, rape charges for sketching nude pictures of classmates? :rolleyes:
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I agree however that it would've been prudent NOT to have made that CS map.
Only because of the general level of paranoia. Back in the day, we made Doom / C&C maps of everything. Because, seriously, who hasn't wanted to run through their local mall, etc., with a chainsaw... ...point is, he made a frickin' map. For a computer game. What's next, rape charges for sketching nude pictures of classmates? :rolleyes:
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Shog9 wrote:
For a computer game. What's next, rape charges for sketching nude pictures of classmates?
What if he made a map shaped like a nude woman. Then he'd be really screwed.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
I've always believed that if we want to live in a free society, there are some risks that go with it. Everyone wants to blame someone for what happened at VT, but the fact is that no one really did anything wrong, except for the nutjob himself. The only thing that could've prevented it would've been luck or violations of civil rights that would equate to living in a police state. On the same day as the VT shootings, about 160 people in Iraq died due to random bombings. 5 times the worst massacre in US history, and it's hardly even news because things are so screwed up over there. They are already living in a police state, and it's not preventing nuts who want to die from taking down others with them. I'd rather take my chances with the freedom we have than worry about me or someone I love being taken down by something that has about 1/1000th the chance of happening as being killed in a car accident.
Faith is a fine invention For gentlemen who see; But microscopes are prudent In an emergency! -Emily Dickinson
David Kentley wrote:
I've always believed that if we want to live in a free society, there are some risks that go with it.
I'm actually pretty sure most of us believe that. However, that still doesn't mean that you completely disregard potential threats. Just as a simple practical matter people in positions of authority must evaluate potentially threatening information. The expectation that all decisions made based upon that information is going to be identical every where all the time is just silly. Was what the school did an over reaction? I suppose. But, then, it is also an over reaction to try to make it appear as some sort of looming threat to our general freedoms. It isn't. I'm sure the good people of that community will work their problems out precisely as Jefferson, et al, intended.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
David Kentley wrote:
I've always believed that if we want to live in a free society, there are some risks that go with it.
I'm actually pretty sure most of us believe that. However, that still doesn't mean that you completely disregard potential threats. Just as a simple practical matter people in positions of authority must evaluate potentially threatening information. The expectation that all decisions made based upon that information is going to be identical every where all the time is just silly. Was what the school did an over reaction? I suppose. But, then, it is also an over reaction to try to make it appear as some sort of looming threat to our general freedoms. It isn't. I'm sure the good people of that community will work their problems out precisely as Jefferson, et al, intended.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Tell me Stan, did you ever play cowboys and Indians as a kid, or pretend to shoot someone with a toy gun or your finger, or force one little green army man to shoot another, or build a tower out of blocks and then knock it over? Do you think it would be reasonable if after doing these actions you were arrested for terrorism and expelled from your school? Do you think it an overreaction to say that such actions would be infringing on your rights, or that arresting all children for these actions would represent a looming threat to our general freedoms?
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I agree however that it would've been prudent NOT to have made that CS map.
Only because of the general level of paranoia. Back in the day, we made Doom / C&C maps of everything. Because, seriously, who hasn't wanted to run through their local mall, etc., with a chainsaw... ...point is, he made a frickin' map. For a computer game. What's next, rape charges for sketching nude pictures of classmates? :rolleyes:
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Where do you get this "self-defense" crap? They were invented to kill; either other men in battle or animals for food.
Sometimes you need to kill in order to defend yourself. The Bill of Rights in the United States is designed to ensure that the people are vested with certain rights that are necessary for the maintenance of democracy. For example, freedom of speech is intended to ensure that the majority doesn't restrain the minority from political involvement. The second amendment ensures that the people can protect themselves from an uninvolved or overinvolved government. The fact that Europe has extensive restrictions on guns and legislation designed to imprison people over certain political speech is probably not a coincidence.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
You should definitely take away the handgun/pistol, it's like TV - life does in fact go on without it. Strange how guns are legal but certain plants aren't
But why? Guns were never a problem until atheism's influence expanded in the 1960's. Are you saying that we should address problems by ignoring the cause and removing the means? That is what Europe is doing with its holocause speech laws. Rather than address the rampant anti-semitism in Europe, they're removing the means to express it. That's the path towards totalitarianism and cultural decline...Not a solution.
Red Stateler wrote:
Sometimes you need to kill in order to defend yourself.
The BoR may need some update. You are not in the far west anymore. Having guns only helps you defend yourself against other gun nuts.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Unfortunantly, the issue isn't about you. It is about tens of thousands of people in positions of authority making thousands of decisions effecting the security of thousands of other people. What do you think the probability might be that some of those decisions are going to appear to be 'over reactions'? And among those that appear to be over reactions, what is the probability that some of them might not be over reactions? But actually result in lives saved?
Unfortunately, the issue isn't about any sort of sane measures that may have been taken slightly overboard. It's about a school going completely overboard and having a student arrested on charges of terrorism because he made a map for a game and he owned a hammer. When that wouldn't stick they instead expelled him. Heaven help him if somewhere in his house he had a box of nails; he'd be on death row.
Read the article. the student was neither arrested nor expelled, he was transferred to a different school.
-
Tell me Stan, did you ever play cowboys and Indians as a kid, or pretend to shoot someone with a toy gun or your finger, or force one little green army man to shoot another, or build a tower out of blocks and then knock it over? Do you think it would be reasonable if after doing these actions you were arrested for terrorism and expelled from your school? Do you think it an overreaction to say that such actions would be infringing on your rights, or that arresting all children for these actions would represent a looming threat to our general freedoms?
James L. Thomson wrote:
Do you think it an overreaction to say that such actions would be infringing on your rights, or that arresting all children for these actions would represent a looming threat to our general freedoms?
No,as a matter of fact, I don't. In fact, I think allowing local communities to deal with such issues as they best see fit is the very definition of our general freedoms. I think trying to reengineer our society so that only the all powerful megastate can make decisions of this sort for everybody, everywhere all the time (which is what all of you are actually argueing for) would be the grossest sort of over-reaction and would mean the complete destruction of our general freedoms as Americans.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Sometimes you need to kill in order to defend yourself.
The BoR may need some update. You are not in the far west anymore. Having guns only helps you defend yourself against other gun nuts.
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Le Centriste wrote:
The BoR may need some update. You are not in the far west anymore. Having guns only helps you defend yourself against other gun nuts.
Recently here in Atlanta, the police got a warrant to rush into an elderly woman's house on a drug bust (there were no drugs in the house and there was no evidence there was). They busted in wearing masks and wielding guns. Thinking they were robbers out to kill her, she shot at them and was immediately killed...Being shot several dozen times (keep in mind this was a woman in her 80s). As a result of her self defense, the city is being forced to revise the methods they use to acquire warrants and you had better believe that the police are going to review their evidence before breaking in on innocent little old ladies. A month earlier, the same thing happened to another little old lady, but she failed to get to her gun in time and was arrested (and released since it was bogus). No action was taken at that point because the police were not threatened and held responsible by the private citizen. "Gun nuts" are not the only ones you need to worry about.
-
There's a greater correlation to the rise of secular humanism in our school system than to possession of guns. But let's ignore that detail.