Faux News Strikes Again

[Gaelbert]

Not quite sure where this thread should go, but I'm imagining most of my rant will be bashing Fox, so here might work best. Two Links:
Actual video of the completely biased interview (http://kotaku.com/347350/keighley-sets-mass-effect-record-straight-or-tries-to)
Scathing rebuttal of the interview (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/news/ea-asks-fox-news-to-correct-misleading-mass-effect-story/19175/?biz=)
Arghhh. I'm agitated and I haven't even played the game. First of all, they pick a person that has never even heard of the game before to talk about it. Fine, I can handle that. Then, she makes a big deal about how you had to say you were 18 years old to get into the site, or something like that. She says this as if it were a bad thing, even though she admitted there was nothing graphic on the site, so one could say that the site was being overprotective. But of course, that wouldn't make good news. Then, she goes out and states thhat there is full digital nudity, and implies that you take full control of your character during intercourse- a blatant lie. Then, they call in two "experts.} One of these experts has played Mass Effect through multiple times, the other has written a book on women. Guess who they address first? She talks about how basically the whole point of the game is playing as a man, making decisions about your harem. Then, the person who actually knows what he's talking about, Geoff Keighley, comes on and says that you can play as a woman. When he asks the other "expert" if she had ever played Mass Effect, she laughs condescendingly and tells him no. Keighley then goes on to explain that this so called "full graphic nudity} is about what is oftentimes shown on primetime TV. He starts to talk about how this small scene is about 2 minutes in a 30 hour game. Before he can actually get a few sentences in about that, the main newscaster interrupts him to change the subject to the website matter I mentioned above. The newscaster also begins to mention about how this is played at such a formative stage in a persons life. Keighley responds that it is quite possible to play through the entire game without the "sex scene." Cooper, the author who has never played this game before, butts in to say, "Of course, a thirtee year old kid is going to choice not to have sex."
Before I even get into Keighley's response, I want to bring up a small thing here. It's called cause and effect. If someone does make a choice to go down that path, the reasons for this choice have been caused in the past, unless Cooper is saying that there is a massive shift in the space time continuum going on here. But anyways, back to the play by play. Keighley retorts that it's not just a simple question, it's a series of events and conversations that lead to inter character development. He talks about how it's like "modeling your life" and is talks about something else, before he is cut off. And this is the part I love. She cuts him off with "darling." She is calling some random person she doesn't even know darling, when just moments before she was talking about sexism and stereotypes and so on and so forth. She brings up some research, that I for the life of me can't figure out it's relevance to the situation, and before Keighlye has a chance to respond, the newscaster cuts him off, saying they have to go. The newscaster talks over and through Keighley, but Cooper does manage to get in another few statements. Finally, Keighley does issue a few statements about how amazing Mass Effect is, and you can hear Cooper laughing in the background. But that's not all. It then goes into another panel of all Fox cronies and yes men (and women) who all admit to never playing Mass Effect. They talk about how terrible videogames are, so on and so forth. There's one quote in particular that stands out, though:
"Who can argue that Luke Skywalker meets Debbie Does Dallas is a good thing? I'm never letting that game into my house." That is a good question. It's probably a good thing that nobody was arguing that. I'm going to condense my next few points into bulletish point thingies:
- If you can't see the rating on the front of the game, something is wrong with your eyesight.
- What the heck does Pinball have to do with this?
- ZOMG!!!111ONE!!! Parents must do work to raise THE FUTURE GENERATION AND THE INHERITORS OF OUR PLANET! Who'da thunk?
*Checks list*
Did anyone else hate who Cooper was smirking into the camera the entire time?
And has anyone taken a look at the shows Fox has on its channel? American Dad?
This is all from the news station that brought you the story on how 4Chan was a terrorist organization and polotted to blow up several football stadiums.
Okay. I'm done with my rant now. Now it's your turn.

[Hallavast]

:smallbiggrin: This from the network that taught my 10 year old cousin the term "sperm dumpster".

The bias isn't too bad, though. Compared to some of their other coverage on politics, the economy, and a bunch of other issues, this is pretty tame. I'm usually anywhere from cursing my television screen to shaking my head in annoyance whenever I watch news media in general...

[SurlySeraph]

Some guy (I can't remember his name) wrote an op-ed about Mass Effect, which is where the "Mass Effect is porn!" claims appeared.

So far, most of the mainstream media does not seem to be acknowledge that THE GAME CONTAINS VIRTUALLY NO SEX! AND THE SEX THAT IT INCLUDES IS NOT VERY EXPLICIT! 24 is about as explicit. Grey's Anatomy is about as explicit. House is about as explicit. Hell, half the shows on TV are about as explicit.

And, because it's a video game and no one bothers to actually play it, they get away with making reports that never have much contact with the truth.

If they can report on a video game this inaccurately - when they could easily check EA's site, or a forum discussion on the game, or ask any of over a million gamers about it - how can we trust them to report actual news accurately?

[Icewalker]

Honestly, I haven't really come to expect much else from Faux...

That was almost so terrible it was funny. I'd probably be more offended if I played the game, but I don't have a 360. I did look into the game a bit before it came out, in the hopes it would make other systems, so I know that it is totally awesome.

[FoE]

This was bloody ridiculous. There's an attempt to turn this into a "sexuality in video games and how it's destroying our society" debate, but only one person in the whole segment has actually PLAYED THE GAME THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

That author's dismissive response to Keighley's question kind of grated on me. She reacted as though he just asked her if she'd enjoyed snuff films.

[factotum]

Cooper has admitted since that interview that she's now watched someone playing the game and does not consider it pornographic in the slightest...mind you, that might just be damage limitation considering the number of gamers who've given her book scathing reviews on Amazon without having read it!

[Nerd-o-rama]

This is why I do not watch the news.

Ever.

[Icewalker]

Cooper has admitted since that interview that she's now watched someone playing the game and does not consider it pornographic in the slightest...mind you, that might just be damage limitation considering the number of gamers who've given her book scathing reviews on Amazon without having read it!

Actually I looked it up on Amazon. I'm guessing that those people would make pretty basic 'you suck' kind of statements, but the comments are flooded with detailed descriptions of people talking about how and why the book sucks. I think that on top of her being terrible in this interview, her book is just terrible.

[Eita]

What book was it again? I want to read these.

[Icewalker]

Here's the link (http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Perfection-Making-Peace-Overachiever/dp/1599211793/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201421633&sr=1-1)to the page. Looks like everyone gave it a 1 or a 2.

[Eita]

Okay. The gamers have been there. Look at the "People who view this go on to buy" screen.

[factotum]

And note that the most popular tags include "ignorant", "bigoted" and "hypocrite"...

[Illiterate Scribe]

Ah, Fox News. How I doth love thee, and thy quasirandom fearmongering.

Yours sincerely,

INTERNET VIDEOGAMING HATE MACHINE.

[rubakhin]

:smallconfused:

I do not understand this. There are warnings on the box. To buy the game requires photo ID to verify the age (IIRC). Any adult who sees the warning and is worried about the content can easily research it on the internet or buy the game and play it themselves before giving it to their kid. So there's no way it could accidentally get into the hands of a child without the consent of his or her legal guardian. So what the hell more do they want? Do they want it to be banned entirely?

You know, if there ever is widespread censorship over here, it'll be FOR THE CHILDREN! which is a lot harder to argue down than FOR SUPPRESSION OF DISSENT!

(Fortunately, I think that will never actually happen in America. I got kind of nervous after hearing about the whole Mike Diana fiasco, though.)

[ufo]

Fox is not a TV station (or whatever) where I live, and I'm glad after watching this. The reporter could at least have bought the game and found someone with an XBox 360 to analyze the game themselves. This is a bunch of bullcrap.

[psycojester]

Its pretty obvious that you've had minimal interaction with fox news if expect them to even preform the most basic of research before they run a story. Hell the kids that go read the opening paragraph of an article on wikipedia and then go write an essay do more research than fox.

[bosssmiley]

Fox isn't a news station, it's just typical fearmongering yellow journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism). Does anyone actually intellectually competent to vote give any credence to what Fox say about anything? :smallannoyed:

Exploding vans? Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!

[Gungnir]

I like how he explained that an Xbox could be set up to NOT ALLOW a kid to play games based on their rating, but that one stupid woman (ambiguous, I know) was whining about how "If it's in the house, the kids will find a way."

[Mephisto]

I like how he explained that an Xbox could be set up to NOT ALLOW a kid to play games based on their rating, but that one stupid woman (ambiguous, I know) was whining about how "If it's in the house, the kids will find a way."

Eh, with a bit of thought you could find and switch off the restrictions.

[Gungnir]

Eh, with a bit of thought you could find and switch off the restrictions.

Passwords?

[XiaoTie]

Fox sucks way too much. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.

Ooooh, since we are talking about video-games and that kind of person: it reminds me of this federal judge here on Brazil who the other made illegal the selling of Counter Strike because it is "too violent and teaches kids guerrilla warfare".

Since the tarrasque-crap that calls himself a judge is a federal judge it became illegal in the entire country. Now, I don't play CT, but I did many times in the past and I am in no way violent because of that. I mean, I would put a bullet on his head, if it was legal that is :thog: (Juuuuuust kidding mr. Mod)

Yeah, I may not have made much sense, just needed to vent. Sorry for kidnapping you thread via the violence and the warfare taught to me by CT.

[Semidi]

*pets his first amendment rights*
I'm so glad my country has this. All uninformed xenophobic fascists can do is complain about it without actually able to get anything outright banned like what takes place in other countries. Even if it was, I’d still play, because I’m that much of a bad-ass.

[Eita]

And note that the most popular tags include "ignorant", "bigoted" and "hypocrite"...

However, Amazon got bitchy and so deleted every last single review.

[Astaroth]

Does anyone actually intellectually competent to vote give any credence to what Fox say about anything? :smallannoyed:


Yes, because anyone who's figured out how to breathe is assumed to be intellectually competent to vote. And really, there's got to be at least one person out there who's figured out what voting means and still actually watches Fox. Maybe even two or three. I bet, with a couple years of intensive training, they could even walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sadly, the ones who can't figure out how to vote are assumed to have voted Republican anyway; thus, we're "fighting to bring democracy" to Iraq, starting by making it a province of the American Empire. Kinda makes you want to move to Australia, or maybe Mars, doesn't it?

[JessSoccer]

Kinda makes you want to move to Australia, or maybe Mars, doesn't it?

*votes for Mars*

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing since .... well...since the cd rating bit a couple years ago. Gah....down with censorship! Up with Parenthood!

[Eita]

Yes, because anyone who's figured out how to breathe is assumed to be intellectually competent to vote. And really, there's got to be at least one person out there who's figured out what voting means and still actually watches Fox. Maybe even two or three. I bet, with a couple years of intensive training, they could even walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sadly, the ones who can't figure out how to vote are assumed to have voted Republican anyway; thus, we're "fighting to bring democracy" to Iraq, starting by making it a province of the American Empire. Kinda makes you want to move to Australia, or maybe Mars, doesn't it?

We're starting with Canada first, remember?

[Azerian Kelimon]

This shows how even the biggest idiot can have a good idea.

Uwe Boll was right. You can prove your point appropiately through a boxing match if this idiots can do this.

BTW, who was the Fox CEO? Usually, news stations respond to the big guy, so he must have approved this.

[Sucrose]

This shows how even the biggest idiot can have a good idea.

Uwe Boll was right. You can prove your point appropiately through a boxing match if this idiots can do this.

BTW, who was the Fox CEO? Usually, news stations respond to the big guy, so he must have approved this.

Don't know about the CEO, but the owner, who seems to keep his hand in the pot a fair amount, is Rupert Murdock.

[Cuddly]

I find it amusing how wound up Americans get over sex. Guys, it's just sex.

[SDF]

I find it amusing how wound up Americans get over sex. Guys, it's just sex.

I think thats an unfair broad spectrum statement. A more accurate broad statement would be, "People are morons."

My favorite part was when the one co-host said something about how these days kids let themselves into the house after school and the parents aren't around. My kid comes home and plays a videogame unsupervised, well this could ruin him! I hear they have these inclusive organizations called gangs now that my child could get involved in if it weren't for games. :smallsigh:

[loopy]

I find it amusing how wound up Americans get over sex. Guys, it's just sex.

*burns Cuddly at stake for mentioning the "S" word... twice!*

Mmmm... Steak.

[Lizardfolk Lich]

*plugs ears*

LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Thiel]

However, Amazon got bitchy and so deleted every last single review.

Actually they just acted on their stated review policy by deleted all the reviews that didn't have anything to do with the book in question, but instead just flamed her for what she said about Mass Effect.
As it turned out, this didn't change its rating since it really is a horrible book, but what if it had been a brilliant book? Is it fair that because the author says something a group of people don't like, her book won't sell anything.

Just to underline my point, try imagine that the author in question was Tolkien and instead of a mob of angry gamers we have a mob of angry students and professor who flame The Lord of the Rings because they disagree with something Tolkien said during a lecture on the Saxon languages from 500 AD - 700 AD.

I'm not defending her or her book, I'm just saying that Amazon did the right thing when they removed the reviews.

[warmachine]

Reminds me of the sensationalism over the disabled 'Hot Coffee' subgame of GTA 3. A game where you can fire heavy weapons in public, engage in gang warfare, carjack, hire prostitutes (and run them over) and change clothes to evade arrest. Where the only consequence of arrest for violent crimes is failing the current mission and losing your weapons. Gee, that's perfectly moral behaviour. Can't show consensual sex though.

[puppyavenger]

Reminds me of the sensationalism over the disabled 'Hot Coffee' subgame of GTA 3. A game where you can fire heavy weapons in public, engage in gang warfare, carjack, hire prostitutes (and run them over) and change clothes to evade arrest. Where the only consequence of arrest for violent crimes is failing the current mission and losing your weapons. Gee, that's perfectly moral behaviour. Can't show consensual sex though.

For some reason in the western world ( and Europe) sex is regarded as "worse" than violence, which is sort of strange considering that violence isn't nescesary for our speicis continued existence and sex is.

[Xuincherguixe]

The sound isn't working on this machine, so I can't really watch it. But it sounds like it's nothing new.

It's hilarious that they won't even let the guy speak. What kind of way is that to argue? Does preventing others from saying things actually convince the target audience? Honestly I don't know how the normal/mundane thinks.

The part of me that wants to summon some dark god with an unutterable name to end the sick joke that's humanity says... *asks* All signs point to yes!

[factotum]

Actually they just acted on their stated review policy by deleted all the reviews that didn't have anything to do with the book in question, but instead just flamed her for what she said about Mass Effect.

There was a point yesterday where every single review of the book had been removed. They now seem to have reinstated some of them...this might be where the confusion has set in.

[Alex Kidd]

WTF

It am Bizzarrooooo Wooorrrrlddd! (http://kotaku.com/349423/jack-thompson-defends-mass-effect)

[Captain van der Decken]

For some reason in the western world ( and Europe) sex is regarded as "worse" than violence, which is sort of strange considering that violence isn't nescesary for our speicis continued existence and sex is.

Europe is, normally, regarded as part of the western world. :smalltongue:

[Selrahc]

For some reason in the western world ( and Europe) sex is regarded as "worse" than violence, which is sort of strange considering that violence isn't nescesary for our speicis continued existence and sex is.

Europe is outside of the Western World now? :smallconfused:

[ZeroNumerous]

Europe is outside of the Western World now? :smallconfused:

Yes. They're in the middle. :smalltongue:

[puppyavenger]

Europe is outside of the Western World now? :smallconfused:

meh, I draw the end of the western world at the end of the western hemisphere, so half of is part of it.

[Selrahc]

I just don't get why you've made a whole new definition for an almost universally understood phrase.

[Athaniar]

Jack "Witch-Hunter" Thompson defending a videogame? That is obviously fake, even if the linked site was believable in any way. Hey, that game can make you want to go out and kill friendly aliens, for Bush's sake! And you can kill people with the disc!

And is Europe part of the "Middle world" now? I had no idea.

[Zenos]

meh, I draw the end of the western world at the end of the western hemisphere, so half of is part of it.

The funny thing is, America can, in a way, be seen as "east" of both Europe and Japan.

[Athaniar]

And that woman is one of the most irritating persons ever.

A brief summary of her arguments:
"Kids won't care about the ratings, kids always thinks about sex, 2 minutes of innocent sex that can be avoided makes the game a danger comparable to Saddam Hussein, not that I've ever played this game, I'm a wannabee Jack Thompson, Darling."

Keighley is the voice of reason. Go Keighley!

[puppyavenger]

And that woman is one of the most irritating persons ever.

A brief summary of her arguments:
"Kids won't care about the ratings, kids always thinks about sex, 2 minutes of innocent sex that can be avoided makes the game a danger comparable to Saddam Hussein, not that I've ever played this game, I'm a wannabee Jack Thompson, Darling."

Keighley is the voice of reason. Go Keighley!

and yet Jack thompsson defended the game, while this is why I only watch Fox for the Simpsons.

[Athaniar]

You really believe the Thompson link? Obviously Fake, with a capital "O", and a capital "F", too. Thompson wants all video games removed from the face of the earth twenty years ago, at the least.

[Telonius]

Why all the hate on Fox? It's my second-favorite Fake News program after the Daily Show. :smallsmile:

[TheThan]

Man I have some stuff to say about everyone who thinks fox is such a terrible station, but since I doubt my (conservative minority) views will change everyone else’s I’m going to just skip it and cut to the chase.


The media likes attacking the video game industry, it has done so several times in the past, and it will continue to do so. There is nothing new in this report, save that they actually had someone there that could rebuttal their “expert”. It anything reports about sex and violence in video games actually boost sales of said games (check out mortal combat, and Night Trap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Trap) for details), though night trap did fail commercially.

Everyone should just take it in stride, video games aren't going away.

P.S.
To those that think it’s just conservatives that attack and bash the video game industry, you should really do your research and read up on Senator Joe Liberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman ), and see for yourself.

[puppyavenger]

P.S.
To those that think it’s just conservatives that attack and bash the video game industry, you should really do your research and read up on Senator Joe Liberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman ), and see for yourself.

who said they thought that?

[TheThan]

who said they thought that?

Its just the vibe I get. I don't mean to offend, just enlighten.

[rubakhin]

meh, I draw the end of the western world at the end of the western hemisphere, so half of is part of it.

*muse* Well, there's the West (most but not all of Europe, America, etc.), the East (Eastern Europe, Russia), the Middle East, the Far East (China etc.) and Africa, and then I guess you've got the various indigenous cultures ... it's a pain in the neck, this all.

Also, are there any modern cultures that don't consider sex worse than death? It's that way in the Middle/Far/Regular East as well, not just the West.

[puppyavenger]

Also, are there any modern cultures that don't consider sex worse than death? It's that way in the Middle/Far/Regular East as well, not just the West.

(remembers that wwe're talking about media)
I have no idea, so I just put the only culture I'm sure of.

[Astaroth]

Also, are there any modern cultures that don't consider sex worse than death? It's that way in the Middle/Far/Regular East as well, not just the West.

Well, see, it is a reasonable belief in some ways. I mean, sex leads to the transmission of STDs and can also cause an inflated birth rate. With an inflated birth rate, you'd get even more people having sex and an even higher birth rate, until overcrowding and lack of food supply became a problem (well, in some places - in America, of course, lack of food would never be a problem, we'd just build more fast food joints). This would cause the general standard of living to drop, until eventually people started killing each other off so as to acquire more food/living space/energy/possessions.

It's much easier to just demonize sex to the population at large, and encourage people to kill each other off so as to acquire more food/living space/energy/possessions. Er, wait... No, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. If you don't like it, I'll kill you for your sneakers. And then invade your country for oil. So there!

[skyclad]

Also, are there any modern cultures that don't consider sex worse than death? It's that way in the Middle/Far/Regular East as well, not just the West.

What do you mean, "consider sex worse than death"? TV here shows both "TV violence" and "TV sex" all the time, and at night gore and porn are ok. Both are talked about pretty openly...

[Astaroth]

What do you mean, "consider sex worse than death"? TV here shows both "TV violence" and "TV sex" all the time, and at night gore and porn are ok. Both are talked about pretty openly...

At least in America, graphic depictions of sex are frowned upon far more than graphic depictions of violence. It's not something you can really argue, at least not with a leg to stand on. TV, movies and video games all get an R rating for graphic violence; graphic sex, on the other hand, is pornography and is NC-17 at the very least, usually X-rated.

For a more comprehensive rant, I recommend the film "This Film is Not Yet Rated," directed by Kirby ****. Amusingly enough, it really is unrated. The MPAA refused to rate the film, which is simply a documentary about the rating process the MPAA employs. Would anyone like a little censorship with their popcorn?

Edit: ironically, the forum censors the last name of the director. It's D-1-C-K, if anyone is interested. Hopefully, a moderator won't delete this post; it's not meant to be obscene at all.

[Eita]

There was a point yesterday where every single review of the book had been removed. They now seem to have reinstated some of them...this might be where the confusion has set in.

Indeed. Mass deletion. They didn't even bother checking. There was a 4 star review that was deleted.

@Jack Thompson: If it's real, then hell has frozen over.

[Rogue 7]

Its just the vibe I get. I don't mean to offend, just enlighten.

Lieberman's pretty outcast from the mainstream Democratic party, though I heard that Hilary Clinton wanted more censorship. Just another reason I'm voting for Obama.

And, yeah, this is nothing new.
This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewMediaAreEvil) pretty much sums it up, including a link to the Fox (not Fox News) report where they try to make 4chan out to be terrorists. Mind you, I sometimes think that the minds of those on 4chan might be more depraved, but that's beside the point.

[SurlySeraph]

Fox isn't a news station, it's just typical fearmongering yellow journalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism). Does anyone actually intellectually competent to vote give any credence to what Fox say about anything? :smallannoyed:

Why, yes. A little less than half the voting population of the United States does. Just because you see that something is flawed doesn't mean everyone else does.


Sadly, the ones who can't figure out how to vote are assumed to have voted Republican anyway; thus, we're "fighting to bring democracy" to Iraq, starting by making it a province of the American Empire. Kinda makes you want to move to Australia, or maybe Mars, doesn't it?

The forum rules say "No political discussion." Avoid it in the future, m'kay?


For some reason in the western world ( and Europe) sex is regarded as "worse" than violence, which is sort of strange considering that violence isn't nescesary for our speicis continued existence and sex is.

Many of my friends criticize that fact a lot, but I think it's good that violence is more acceptable than sex as viewing for kids. Why? Simple. Almost every single 5-year-old has been in a pushing match, a fight over toys, or something similar. Violence is something that cannot be avoided; there's some degree of violence in pretty much everything, and kids get used to it.

Kids can understand violence, and most of them can understand that there's a difference between punching Tommy in the nose to take your blocks back and stabbing Tommy just for being there. Exposing kids to some level of violent content helps them understand that violence is a fact of life, and helps them understand what levels of violence are acceptable or unacceptable in which contexts.

However, sex is difference. The hell with what Freud said, young children do not have sex drives. Period. They just don't, until they're around 12 years old - 9 years old in rare cases. Young children can't intuitively understand sex; they can't go experimenting with sex with their friends like they can with violence. It would have extremely bad consequences on their mental development, they'd likely be mocked and/ or ostracized, adults would freak out, and given their state of physical development most of them wouldn't, er, learn anything anyway.

In summary: Exposing kids to violent media is unlikely going to screw up how they view the world because their friends will expose them to normal levels of violence. Exposing kids to sexualized media is likely to screw up how they view the world because they can't learn how sexuality is in the real world at that age, and the damage will be done by the time they can learn.

[Icewalker]

This is awesome. (http://loadingreadyrun.com/videos/view/302/max_effect)

LoadingReadyRun, a very hilarious comedy site run by people who are also gamers, have reenacted the broadcast. It's great.

[DomaDoma]

For all I've heard about "Faux News", this is the closest I've ever heard to its actual lying. And even here, it's more "sensationalism while not knowing what the hell you're talking about", which is par for the course on TV news.

[Cuddly]

Many of my friends criticize that fact a lot, but I think it's good that violence is more acceptable than sex as viewing for kids. Why? Simple. Almost every single 5-year-old has been in a pushing match, a fight over toys, or something similar. Violence is something that cannot be avoided; there's some degree of violence in pretty much everything, and kids get used to it.

Kids can understand violence, and most of them can understand that there's a difference between punching Tommy in the nose to take your blocks back and stabbing Tommy just for being there. Exposing kids to some level of violent content helps them understand that violence is a fact of life, and helps them understand what levels of violence are acceptable or unacceptable in which contexts.

However, sex is difference. The hell with what Freud said, young children do not have sex drives. Period. They just don't, until they're around 12 years old - 9 years old in rare cases. Young children can't intuitively understand sex; they can't go experimenting with sex with their friends like they can with violence. It would have extremely bad consequences on their mental development, they'd likely be mocked and/ or ostracized, adults would freak out, and given their state of physical development most of them wouldn't, er, learn anything anyway.

In summary: Exposing kids to violent media is unlikely going to screw up how they view the world because their friends will expose them to normal levels of violence. Exposing kids to sexualized media is likely to screw up how they view the world because they can't learn how sexuality is in the real world at that age, and the damage will be done by the time they can learn.

Yes, we should all train our children to be puritanical sociopaths who think it's acceptable to hurt people. Terrific argument. :smallconfused:

[Icewalker]

Yes, we should all train our children to be puritanical sociopaths who think it's acceptable to hurt people. Terrific argument. :smallconfused:

Um...I believe what he is saying is that kids are always exposed to some level of violence in life and playing 'violent' games helps differentiate between real life violence and the extremes you see in games...

[Innis Cabal]

sex isnt nearly as bad as violence. Look at all the cultures in the world that have embraced a more sexually open lifestyle....odd that their murder rates are so low. Its rough killing someone when your tuckered out

[North]

Wow. It makes my brain explode to see something so contrived as that interview. I seriously hope that the negative backlash from the gamer community hurts that Authors hacks sales...

[SurlySeraph]

Yes, we should all train our children to be puritanical sociopaths who think it's acceptable to hurt people. Terrific argument. :smallconfused:

I'm not saying that children should not be allowed to learn about sexuality (even the Victorians didn't do that), and I'm not saying that children should be taught as much as possible about violence (even the Spartans didn't do that). I'm saying that it's less harmful to expose young children to excessive violence in media than to expose them to excessive sexuality in media. Obviously there's a continuum: seeing two people briefly kissing in a movie is unlikely to damage a kid's worldview much, while seeing something like Saw would traumatize any kid. But, as a general rule, I believe that exposure to violent content is less harmful than exposure to sexual content.

It's absolutely acceptable to hurt people, in certain contexts. It's a normal part of growing up. Hurting people is acceptable as long as the person you're hurting is one of your peers, you don't cause any major injury, and you're in a situation where playing around is not inappropriate.
Protecting children from violent media won't make them think hurting people is unacceptable: if it did, kids who weren't exposed to violence would never try to grab toys from each other, push each other out of the way while running to get something, trip each other as a joke, etc. But in the real world, kids fight each other without having seen fighting before. A certain amount of violence is just a fact of life for kids, especially boys.

What I'm saying is that letting kids see violence in media isn't "training" them to be violent. It's letting them see something that they already know about. It is entirely natural for pre-pubescents to know that violence exists and how it works. Letting them see violent entertainment won't make them sociopaths, because they already understand violence. Letting pre-pubescents see sexual entertainment is a problem, because they don't have experience with sexuality that lets them know what is and is not acceptable or appropriate. It's not "training" them to have sex, it's giving them misleading notions about what sex is.

If you disagree with my logic, I'm willing to resort to a logical fallacy: the appeal to nature. Which strikes you as more normal behavior: six-year-olds pushing each other in public, or six-year-olds french-kissing in public?


sex isnt nearly as bad as violence. Look at all the cultures in the world that have embraced a more sexually open lifestyle....odd that their murder rates are so low. Its rough killing someone when your tuckered out

Is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia) that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo) so? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa) And that's without mentioning the real public health threat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa) that countries with highly sexualized cultures face.

[Astaroth]

The forum rules say "No political discussion." Avoid it in the future, m'kay?

Then this thread should have been deleted long ago, as discussions of sex and violence in media are pretty much inseparable from politics. Whether or not such a discussion invokes the name of a political party is irrelevant, it's still a political discussion. It involves decisions about control & censorship for the good of the populace. In my book, anyway, that's political.


Many of my friends criticize that fact a lot, but I think it's good that violence is more acceptable than sex as viewing for kids. Why? Simple. Almost every single 5-year-old has been in a pushing match, a fight over toys, or something similar. Violence is something that cannot be avoided; there's some degree of violence in pretty much everything, and kids get used to it.

Graphic, deadly violence and a pushing match over toys aren't exactly on the same level. That's like saying that because graphic sex is heavily restricted, kissing shouldn't be allowed in a PG-13 movie. Granted, most graphic depictions of violence are R-rated, but an R rating and an X rating are very different, and that kind of distinction is present in any question of ratings where sex & violence are concerned. This isn't even a question of whether or not graphic depictions of sex and/or violence should be allowed, it's a question of how they're treated differently, because they indisuptably are.


However, sex is difference. The hell with what Freud said, young children do not have sex drives. Period. They just don't, until they're around 12 years old - 9 years old in rare cases. Young children can't intuitively understand sex; they can't go experimenting with sex with their friends like they can with violence. It would have extremely bad consequences on their mental development, they'd likely be mocked and/ or ostracized, adults would freak out, and given their state of physical development most of them wouldn't, er, learn anything anyway.

In summary: Exposing kids to violent media is unlikely going to screw up how they view the world because their friends will expose them to normal levels of violence. Exposing kids to sexualized media is likely to screw up how they view the world because they can't learn how sexuality is in the real world at that age, and the damage will be done by the time they can learn.

Were you ever a child? Didn't you ever play doctor with the neighbor's daughter, or son if that's your style? By 5 years old, most kids will be just as curious about why Mommy & Daddy are eating each other's faces as they will be about why Daddy is hitting Mommy and telling the nice men in blue that she fell down the stairs.

For the past three years I've worked with children on a regular basis as a professional photographer, and most of them have no problem with hugging or kissing. Yelling, on the other hand, can very easily and quickly break a child apart, emotionally speaking; much less violence, even implied violence. How exactly is exposure to graphic violence - let's say a videotape of a person being brutally tortured and murdered, and clearly suffering - going to be less scarring to a child than a graphically explicit videotape of two people having sex, and clearly enjoying themselves? Yet one is R-rated, possibly NC-17, and one is X-rated. Justify this, please. If you make sense with it, I'll give you a cookie and let you watch TV as late as you want.

Keep in mind, by the way, I'm not saying that graphic sex should be more acceptable than graphic violence. I am saying that they should be equally prohibited, or equally allowed. Either can be scarring if not properly put into perspective BY THE PARENTS. You know, the job that parents have had for the past several thousand years, and are now trying to give up to the government. If we're going to censor our entire society, let's do it right, shall we?

[Dacia Brabant]

I'm not even going to get into the moral or political arguments, but violent scenes from a screenwriter's standpoint are more useful to moving the dramatic action of the story forward than sex scenes, at least generally speaking, whereas sex scenes tend to either be tacked on or possibly (rarely, in my opinion) useful for revealing character traits.

Take, for example, 300, where graphic violence was always present and was always used to keep the conflict of the story (Spartans vs. Persians) moving, but it also had three graphic sex scenes, which were at best used as a characterization tool to show Xerxes, Ephialtes and the Ephori as depraved (and Leonidas and his wife as having a good marriage--they are the heroes after all). However, Xerxes' depravity was revealed as much if not moreso through the depictions of his troops in battle, and the Ephori and Ephialtes through their appearance and their betrayals of their people, while Leonidas and Gorgo clearly had a good relationship throughout the film with or without seeing them having sex.

Now that's just one film, but even there where sex is used for characterization, it's still just one small part of how the audience knows who those characters are, while violence was an integral part of telling the story of that famous battle. I'm sure there are film examples that can counter that, but for my part the only one I can think of where sex scenes were needed not only for essential characterization but also for setting up and moving forward conflict was Killing Zoe, and even there violence was still the driving force of the story. Most times it's just thrown in, but I'll agree that tacked-on, pointless violence is just as bad for filmmaking.

Also, to all the people who think the masses can't get their sexual content in media in America, have you even watched Cinemax or Showtime (let alone pay-per-view)? Sex in media, much like in reality, is readily available for a price.

[Indon]

If you disagree with my logic, I'm willing to resort to a logical fallacy: the appeal to nature. Which strikes you as more normal behavior: six-year-olds pushing each other in public, or six-year-olds french-kissing in public?

You're combining that with the same disproportion that you pointed out earlier. Why? Kids that age don't have the coordination, I doubt they're capable of french kissing when the majority of them don't know how to pronounce English correctly (which is something they've been watching people do constantly since they were born), especially syllables involving the tongue and lips.

It would be more appropriate to compare french-kissing with a strike to the solar plexus, or a choke hold. It doesn't matter how many of them a 6-year old's going to see, it'll be years before they can do any of them. In contrast, pushing is more comparable to a normal kiss, which many kids get exposure to entirely platonically from their parents.

[WNxHasoroth]

I'm confused:

Right Wing Beliefs: Sex in videogames = More sex IRL = More Babies = Bad. So why are most Right Wingers "pro-life"?

Its a mind f-k of colossal proportions, another symptom of the diseased American consciousness.

*Continues on in a drunken 2am ramble*

[Cuddly]

stuff

So by training kids to be violent with violent media, we can solve the problem of violence.... Brilliant.


I'm not even going to get into the moral or political arguments, but violent scenes from a screenwriter's standpoint are more useful to moving the dramatic action of the story forward than sex scenes, at least generally speaking, whereas sex scenes tend to either be tacked on or possibly (rarely, in my opinion) useful for revealing character traits.

And from a producers standpoint, sex sells.


Um...I believe what he is saying is that kids are always exposed to some level of violence in life and playing 'violent' games helps differentiate between real life violence and the extremes you see in games...

I'm unaware of any evidence that shows this to be true. In fact, most studies show just the opposite.

I'm unaware of any evidence that shows this to be true. In fact, most studies show just the opposite.

[Astaroth]

I'm not even going to get into the moral or political arguments, but violent scenes from a screenwriter's standpoint are more useful to moving the dramatic action of the story forward than sex scenes, at least generally speaking, whereas sex scenes tend to either be tacked on or possibly (rarely, in my opinion) useful for revealing character traits.

That's a rather interesting claim. Really, either sex or violence, or simply dialogue, can be used to move a story forward. There are plenty of movies with no violence whatsoever that keep an enthralling storyline going - I can think of just as many movies that use tasteful depictions, or even just implications, of sex to heighten drama as I can movies that use violence in the same fashion. Two that just pop into mind as I'm writing this, as I've seen them recently, are Venus and The Family Stone, both quite popular movies among those who don't like big explosions to dominate their entertainment. I'm sure I could think of plenty more with no trouble.

And arguing that there aren't movies that use graphic depictions of sex to advance the storyline, while there are movies that use graphic violence to do the same, is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. Movies with graphic sex receive harsher ratings, which makes them less commercializable. Thus, they receive less studio & advertising support, and can't get top-line actors or materials, etc. etc. On the other hand, graphic violence is more likely to sneak past with a PG-13 or R rating, which makes such movies far more attractive for investors to sink money into.


while violence was an integral part of telling the story of that famous battle

Um, duh. Violence an integral part of telling the story of a battle? Who woulda thunk it? I would have figured kittens and butterflies to be the most important part of a battle, but I guess some people are just silly.[/sarcasm]


Also, to all the people who think the masses can't get their sexual content in media in America, have you even watched Cinemax or Showtime (let alone pay-per-view)? Sex in media, much like in reality, is readily available for a price.

Certainly sex has its place in American media, but it's a much more subdued and tightly controlled place than violence. Gunfights and explosions are fine for PG-13, as long as there's no blood, but show a woman topless and you're talking about an R rating right off the bat. That's pretty clearly a double standard, and in my mind, pretty clearly skewed the wrong way. Sure, sex can incite violence, but it's also an expression of love. Violence, on the other hand, is very rarely an expression of anything more than hatred or dominance. Which is more appropriate for children to be learning? Love or hate?

[WalkingTarget]

Certainly sex has its place in American media, but it's a much more subdued and tightly controlled place than violence. Gunfights and explosions are fine for PG-13, as long as there's no blood, but show a woman topless and you're talking about an R rating right off the bat. That's pretty clearly a double standard, and in my mind, pretty clearly skewed the wrong way. Sure, sex can incite violence, but it's also an expression of love. Violence, on the other hand, is very rarely an expression of anything more than hatred or dominance. Which is more appropriate for children to be learning? Love or hate?

Yeah, America is still dealing with its Puritan heritage if you ask me. The nudity thing is especially annoying, especially since it seems to be able to sneak into PG-13 movies occasionally anyway (Titanic anyone?) which says to me that it's entirely arbitrary.

I remember watching Terminator when I was six (that babysitter didn't last long, but my parents never had a "talk" with me any my brothers about it either). Extreme violence and a sex scene w/ nudity. I think that I turned out just fine. Hell, despite a lifetime of being exposed to violent media (been playing FPSs since Wolfenstein 3D and watching R-for-violence movies with my dad since I was not too much older than 6, Alien and its first few sequels by 10 or so I think) I'm about one of the least violent people I know. Can't generalize from my case to people in general, but it's not a guaranteed correspondence.

[DomaDoma]

I'll say this much about how gratuitous sex scenes generally are: the big plot twist of a certain popular first book in a series basically hinges on audience expectations that sex scenes are supposed to be gratuitous, and thus that the sex scene in question was basically there as decoration for the evil plotting.

[Prophaniti]

I would just like to point out that the 'yellow journalism' displayed in such interviews is nothing new, and certainly not something that only Fox does. Controversy sells, and so it is quite common to see a piece of media blown immensly out of proportion by the Media (Golden Compass, anyone?) in order to boost interest and sales of it's coverage.

Now, personally I try not to watch any news network exclusively as they all tend to scew a story with personal politics. Since most of the other major networks have a strong liberal bent, it is occasionally refreshing to watch something with a conservative bent, since it's nigh impossible to find truly unbiased media these days. Even the Internet is full of bias and propaganda, I recall seeing numerous articles on internet-only news sites that said the same things about Mass Effect as the crazy book lady did. The trick, in America at least, is to make sure you're exposed to as many differnt biased views as possible so you can find the middle ground. Which more often than not is probably the right place to be.

Sorry to stray from the fascinating discussion on the acceptability of sex and violence.

[Astaroth]

Yeah, America is still dealing with its Puritan heritage if you ask me. The nudity thing is especially annoying, especially since it seems to be able to sneak into PG-13 movies occasionally anyway (Titanic anyone?) which says to me that it's entirely arbitrary.

Yes, we're still chained to our Puritan heritage, and pretty badly. Not only in views on sex, look at alcoholism/drunk driving rates here compared to Europe. Here, drinking is taboo and thus 'cool' - there, it's entirely acceptable and no one could care less about a 10-year-old having a glass of wine with dinner, or walking up to a bar and ordering one. No one's going to bother smacking you on the wrist with a ruler for drinking, which makes it much less of a thrill.


I remember watching Terminator when I was six (that babysitter didn't last long, but my parents never had a "talk" with me any my brothers about it either). Extreme violence and a sex scene w/ nudity. I think that I turned out just fine. Hell, despite a lifetime of being exposed to violent media (been playing FPSs since Wolfenstein 3D and watching R-for-violence movies with my dad since I was not too much older than 6, Alien and its first few sequels by 10 or so I think) I'm about one of the least violent people I know. Can't generalize from my case to people in general, but it's not a guaranteed correspondence.

Of course, the vast majority of people exposed to either sex or violence as children will grow up and be able to integrate those experiences into some kind of sensible world-view. I just think that heavy exposure to violence and no exposure to sex is the absolute wrong way to go; if anything, it's likely to create more serial killers and rapists and less hippies, rather than vice versa. Seriously, who's more of a danger to society, a rapist or a hippie?




I would just like to point out that the 'yellow journalism' displayed in such interviews is nothing new, and certainly not something that only Fox does. Controversy sells, and so it is quite common to see a piece of media blown immensly out of proportion by the Media (Golden Compass, anyone?) in order to boost interest and sales of it's coverage.
...
Sorry to stray from the fascinating discussion on the acceptability of sex and violence.

Yeah, how dare you get back to the original topic? Actually, this is probably the most sensible thing I've seen yet in this thread, including everything I've said. You're entirely right, all journalism is biased to some extent; about the only way to present a news story without some kind of bias is a direct minute-by-minute video of the action in question, with no one commenting on it in the background or afterwards. That, of course, will never happen - newspapers, radio, TV stations all exist to sell themselves and make a profit. You don't do that by being the sensible middle-ground point of view, you do it by grabbing for the biggest market segment you can find and holding on for dear life with as many skewed and/or controversial views as possible. After all, no publicity is bad publicity, as long as you have no morals to worry about. Yay capitalism! Too bad it's better than all the alternatives.

That's why I don't watch TV news channels, except for statements directly from the President. Talk about the best place to get sensible, unbiased views...[/sarcasm]

[LordVader]

Yes, we're still chained to our Puritan heritage, and pretty badly. Not only in views on sex, look at alcoholism/drunk driving rates here compared to Europe. Here, drinking is taboo and thus 'cool' - there, it's entirely acceptable and no one could care less about a 10-year-old having a glass of wine with dinner, or walking up to a bar and ordering one. No one's going to bother smacking you on the wrist with a ruler for drinking, which makes it much less of a thrill.


Well, I just checked and the minimum age for drinking in Europe seems to be on average 16. Now, I don't know if this is winked at or not, but it is there nonetheless.

Also, last time I was in Ireland I heard it had a pretty bad drunk-driving problem, and they had some PRETTY graphic commercials on (and I saw a couple of other things that seemed to indicate a push against DD) : so it seems to me that Ireland, at least, does indeed have a problem with drinking and driving.

One more thing: If you want un-biased views, that's literally almost impossible. Everything in America is biased. The New York Times, Fox News, the New York Post, everything. In fact, you can't get an unbiased viewpoint of America even in other countries. :smallwink:

[Astaroth]

Well, I just checked and the minimum age for drinking in Europe seems to be on average 16. Now, I don't know if this is winked at or not, but it is there nonetheless.

Also, last time I was in Ireland I heard it had a pretty bad drunk-driving problem, and they had some PRETTY graphic commercials on (and I saw a couple of other things that seemed to indicate a push against DD) : so it seems to me that Ireland, at least, does indeed have a problem with drinking and driving.

Hmm, actually I haven't done much research on this, perhaps it's changed or perhaps I was just wrong in the first place. I know that when I spent time in Italy, I watched a kid who couldn't have been more than 8 or 9 walk up to a bar and bring 3 glasses of wine back to the table he and his (equally-young) friends were sitting at. I also had dinner with a couple host families there (this was a student exchange program, in high school mind you, so none of the people in the program were legally allowed to drink in America) and they served wine to their children and the exchange students present with equal disregard.

Of course, this was before the EU came about, so I guess it's reasonably likely things have drastically changed. Even so, I'd be incredibly surprised if any country in Europe has as high a drunk-driving death rate as America does. Last I heard, it's less than half ours even in the worst case.


One more thing: If you want un-biased views, that's literally almost impossible. Everything in America is biased. The New York Times, Fox News, the New York Post, everything. In fact, you can't get an unbiased viewpoint of America even in other countries. :smallwink:

I'm not saying it's possible, but that's not going to stop me from wanting it. Ah well, I've long since become inured to the mighty dollar ruling everything in, or remotely near, my life. Doesn't make it right, though.

[Prophaniti]

I don't know... There's some things out there that are at least mostly unbiased. Take this article (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericanPoliticalSystem) for example. Lays out all the details and manages to avoid any obvious political bias while simultaneously being hilariously sarcastic. I especially love the line in the Political Parties section: The general feeling among Americans about these [two] parties is that one of them is evil, and the other is incompetent. Which is which depends on who you talk to.

Still, one must be very careful what one takes as 'fact' from the news, especially in an area as gray and muddy as politics. I saw a segment today that expounded for more than a half-hour about Obama's 'snubbing' of Hilary at the Senate. I'm still not sure whether it made me want to laugh (because they took it so seriously) or cry (because they took it so seriously). Maybe a bit of both.

[Selrahc]

Well, I just checked and the minimum age for drinking in Europe seems to be on average 16. Now, I don't know if this is winked at or not, but it is there nonetheless.

Are you thinking of the minimum age for purchase on average? Most European countries have no minimum age for drinking.

[SurlySeraph]

*rereads own last post*

Wow, not only am I terrible at expressing what I mean, but I use comparisons that aren't very similar at all to express it. :smallsigh: That'll teach me to post at 3 AM.

Alright. What I meant was basically that I accept the status quo. Sexual content is regulated much more heavily than violent content, and I don't have a problem with that. In my opinion, seeing levels of violence in media that are inappropriate for their age is less likely to harm children than seeing levels of sex in media that are inappropriate for their age. That's all I have to say on the topic; ignore my repetitive rambling.


Then this thread should have been deleted long ago, as discussions of sex and violence in media are pretty much inseparable from politics. Whether or not such a discussion invokes the name of a political party is irrelevant, it's still a political discussion. It involves decisions about control & censorship for the good of the populace. In my book, anyway, that's political.

Eh, not really. Generally flamewars don't start over philosophy, just over party loyalty. As long as no one supports or attacks specific politicians too much, it's fine.


Were you ever a child? Didn't you ever play doctor with the neighbor's daughter, or son if that's your style? By 5 years old, most kids will be just as curious about why Mommy & Daddy are eating each other's faces as they will be about why Daddy is hitting Mommy and telling the nice men in blue that she fell down the stairs.

Heh, legally I still am a child. Five more months until I can legally vote and sign for packages. As for the second question... no. No, I didn't. I can't remember if this was due to being a young Puritan, due to not getting along with girls, due to being hideously ugly, or what, but I didn't.


Keep in mind, by the way, I'm not saying that graphic sex should be more acceptable than graphic violence. I am saying that they should be equally prohibited, or equally allowed. Either can be scarring if not properly put into perspective BY THE PARENTS. You know, the job that parents have had for the past several thousand years, and are now trying to give up to the government. If we're going to censor our entire society, let's do it right, shall we?

I agree with this and with pretty much everything in your post that I removed for space. We need better parenting.


You're combining that with the same disproportion that you pointed out earlier.

In retrospect, you're right. My previous argument was wrong.


So by training kids to be violent with violent media, we can solve the problem of violence.... Brilliant.

Not training kids to be violent, just letting them watch fairly violent shows if they want to. I am not advocating forcing children to watch Die Hard. I'm advocating letting children watch cartoon characters hit each other with mallets, duel with Ancient Egyptian Laser Beams, etc. should they want to. And I'm not saying this'll solve the problem of violence; I'm just saying that it won't make the problem worse.


Yeah, America is still dealing with its Puritan heritage if you ask me.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with my Puritan heritage? As long as I don't preach too loudly in public, kidnap and indoctrinate the children of heretics, hold witch trials, etc., I'm doing no harm. Freedom of speech means letting even those who oppose freedom of speech speak, remember? :smallyuk:

[LordVader]

I would expect TV Tropes to be unbiased, when you're being humorous it's a little easier to do because you're making fun of both sides.:smallbiggrin:

But it's very difficult in mass media to find an unbiased source.

@Selrahc- Nope, it said drinking. I expect it to be pretty much winked at (or what I looked at could be wrong, wouldn't suprise me...damn you Google) but I was just wondering if it was there.

@ Astaroth: It wouldn't suprise me if Ireland had a better ratio than we do, but they do seem to be concerned with drunk driving, at least there.

[Hawriel]

This remineds me of a nightline news story a year and a half ago. Nightline ran a story that the US government found a video game being advertised on a real terrorest web sight. Nightline played the trailer for this terrorest game and played the whole thing for their news story. It took me 3 seconds to see that it was BF2 SF with a voice over from the movie Team America. Thank god Nightline does their homework. They found the origional creator of the trailer and interviewd him along with peaple from EA. The Trailer was made by a teenager in the US, who happened to be muslem. He made it as a joke. It was in no way intended to make peaple want to kill Americans. It was a lampoone if any thing at all. EA came right out and said that was their game. A fan must have used the game recorder to make a video. Other peaple in the gaming industry gave Nightline their two cents and thats how Nightline reported it. It turned out that a real terrorist found this kids video and downloaded it onto their sight. Whare the US gov found it. The US would not admit they made a mistake nore that BF2 existed. It was terrorist game that was made to kill americans. They where right dispite the fact every one who new where telling them they where wrong.

Sorry this was long but the BS about Mass Effect is not the only BS fanatic conservatists have attacked. It started with comic books in the 50s and 60s, swiched to D&D and cartoons in the 80s now its video games and fantacy books like Harry Potter.

edit spelling

[Selrahc]

Nope, it said drinking. I expect it to be pretty much winked at (or what I looked at could be wrong) but I was just wondering if it was there.

Well in the two countries I know the drinking laws for (The UK and Ireland) the drinking ages are really low(5 in the UK, non existent in Ireland) while the age of purchase is 18. And the times I've been over to Spain and France, I've seen pretty much the same thing as Astaroth did in Italy.

[LordVader]

Well in the two countries I know the drinking laws for (The UK and Ireland) the drinking ages are really low(5 in the UK, non existent in Ireland) while the age of purchase is 18. And the times I've been over to Spain and France, I've seen pretty much the same thing as Astaroth did in Italy.

Damn Google playing tricks with me again....:smallannoyed:

All the same, I'd (in my own opinion, of course) say that it's maybe not a great idea for kids to actually be drinking, but I can certainly see the usefulness of making it more common.

[Semidi]

Seraph, out of curiosity, do you have any sort of piece of paper stating that you’re competent in psychology, specifically child development?

Europe has far looser standards in regards to sex in the media, and I haven’t heard of a pandemic of children who have psychoses due to being exposed to nipples at an early age.

[Dacia Brabant]

That's a rather interesting claim. Really, either sex or violence, or simply dialogue, can be used to move a story forward. There are plenty of movies with no violence whatsoever that keep an enthralling storyline going - I can think of just as many movies that use tasteful depictions, or even just implications, of sex to heighten drama as I can movies that use violence in the same fashion. Two that just pop into mind as I'm writing this, as I've seen them recently, are Venus and The Family Stone, both quite popular movies among those who don't like big explosions to dominate their entertainment. I'm sure I could think of plenty more with no trouble.
You make a sarcastic attack at me after saying something as blatantly obvious as "dialogue can be used to move a story forward"? How amusing. I'll refrain from making a "well duh" statement to counter this, but the point of contention, if you'll recall, was between graphic sex and graphic violence. Sexual themes and implications aren't at issue, or at least I never made them an issue and was solely speaking to visual depictions of sexual intercourse--themes and motifs are part of storytelling (duh), and sexuality is one of many possible ones (duh again). I just question how useful full-on sex acts (or what look like them at least) are to the filmmaker's art compared to violent acts.


And arguing that there aren't movies that use graphic depictions of sex to advance the storyline, while there are movies that use graphic violence to do the same, is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. Movies with graphic sex receive harsher ratings, which makes them less commercializable. Thus, they receive less studio & advertising support, and can't get top-line actors or materials, etc. etc. On the other hand, graphic violence is more likely to sneak past with a PG-13 or R rating, which makes such movies far more attractive for investors to sink money into.
Okay, if you're going to dismiss cinema like that, what about stage plays? Opera? Even literature? Did Euripides, living in a time and place of exceedingly lax sexual mores, need overt sex acts in his "make love not war" play, Lysistrata? Nope, and good luck finding any great dramatist who has.


Um, duh. Violence an integral part of telling the story of a battle? Who woulda thunk it? I would have figured kittens and butterflies to be the most important part of a battle, but I guess some people are just silly.[/sarcasm]
See above.


Certainly sex has its place in American media, but it's a much more subdued and tightly controlled place than violence. Gunfights and explosions are fine for PG-13, as long as there's no blood, but show a woman topless and you're talking about an R rating right off the bat. That's pretty clearly a double standard, and in my mind, pretty clearly skewed the wrong way. Sure, sex can incite violence, but it's also an expression of love. Violence, on the other hand, is very rarely an expression of anything more than hatred or dominance. Which is more appropriate for children to be learning? Love or hate?

Did you read the very first thing I wrote in my post, the part about refraining from comment regarding the morality of depicting graphic sex/graphic violence? Let me put it in simple terms for you: I don't care what's "appropriate" for children to learn, at least not from a film. I merely entered the thread because it looked like violence in cinema was being criticized while sexuality elevated as somehow "better", and as someone with an interest in screenwriting (and violent conflict in cinema in particular) I thought I could add a different perspective. What was I thinking?

[SurlySeraph]

Seraph, out of curiosity, do you have any sort of piece of paper stating that you’re competent in psychology, specifically child development?

Europe has far looser standards in regards to sex in the media, and I haven’t heard of a pandemic of children who have psychoses due to being exposed to nipples at an early age.

I just mentioned that I'm not old enough to vote yet, didn't I? There's your answer.

Of course I'm just speculating and stating my opinion. This is a thread discussing an inaccurate news report about a video game, on a forum about a webcomic about Dungeons and Dragons. Expecting professional child psychologists to come out of the woodwork and dispense truth here is ludicrous. If you can round up a bunch of psychs to explain that my opinion is wrong, good for you; I'll listen to them. If you can't, I have my beliefs and you have yours.

[Astaroth]

You make a sarcastic attack at me after saying something as blatantly obvious as "dialogue can be used to move a story forward"? How amusing.

Heh, touche. You're entirely right, that was unnecessary and I apologize.


I'll refrain from making a "well duh" statement to counter this, but the point of contention, if you'll recall, was between graphic sex and graphic violence. Sexual themes and implications aren't at issue, or at least I never made them an issue and was solely speaking to visual depictions of sexual intercourse--themes and motifs are part of storytelling (duh), and sexuality is one of many possible ones (duh again). I just question how useful full-on sex acts (or what look like them at least) are to the filmmaker's art compared to violent acts.

I still don't believe that fully graphic violence is somehow a better tool for artists than fully graphic sexuality. Neither of them is entirely necessary for storytelling. And, if you'll recall, the point at which you entered the discussion was when I stated that graphic sex is restricted far more heavily than graphic violence, which I believe should not be the case. Strictures for the two should be equally harsh, or equally lax. After all, the only good reason for such strictures (which I know you're trying to leave out of the equation, but I don't believe it can be disregarded so easily) is a question of morality - or, to paraphrase, what's appropriate for children.

To bring this to the ultimate extreme, let's look at films. On one side, we have Debbie Does Dallas, or Good Girls Like It Deep (who knows if this is an actual title, but it probably is). On the other, we have Faces of Death 45 and authentic, real-time videotapes from Auschwitz. Obviously, I'm over-exaggerating, but the point is that neither graphic sex nor graphic violence are necessary for storytelling purposes.

[WalkingTarget]

And what, pray tell, is wrong with my Puritan heritage? As long as I don't preach too loudly in public, kidnap and indoctrinate the children of heretics, hold witch trials, etc., I'm doing no harm. Freedom of speech means letting even those who oppose freedom of speech speak, remember? :smallyuk:

Oh, nothing wrong with it. It's just that the "can't let the womenfolk show their ankles lest the men go out of their minds with desire" sort of prudishness still seems to be ingrained in our society at large when it comes to nudity in general. Countries without this background often have less extreme objections to nudity in media (not saying it's the only reason for the American view on matters, but I think it's definitely a contributing factor).

[kamikasei]

Also, last time I was in Ireland I heard it had a pretty bad drunk-driving problem, and they had some PRETTY graphic commercials on (and I saw a couple of other things that seemed to indicate a push against DD) : so it seems to me that Ireland, at least, does indeed have a problem with drinking and driving.

Ireland is not very "European" in its attitudes to alcohol, not in the way "European" is being used as a shorthand in this thread. A few pints in the pub of an evening with the attendant risk when you get in the car afterwards is much more the model than a glass of wine with your meal, or has been, and is the target of such ads. At the same time, I think it would be fair to say that things like drink driving, smoking in public, etc. are more closely regulated here than in America, so that might be distorting your perception further (as in, maybe Ireland has better rates of drink driving but frets about it more anyway). I don't have the numbers on that, though.

[Semidi]

I just mentioned that I'm not old enough to vote yet, didn't I? There's your answer.

Of course I'm just speculating and stating my opinion. This is a thread discussing an inaccurate news report about a video game, on a forum about a webcomic about Dungeons and Dragons. Expecting professional child psychologists to come out of the woodwork and dispense truth here is ludicrous. If you can round up a bunch of psychs to explain that my opinion is wrong, good for you; I'll listen to them. If you can't, I have my beliefs and you have yours.

The question had been on my front page for a few hours, forgot to post.

I'm not expecting professional psychologists. However, as I said the post was dated from when you weren't writing in "in my opinion" so much as “children should not view X because it’s harmful to them.” I back read and saw you amended your original response. For that, I'm sorry, I'll check next time. Continue on.

For everything else, I prefer to have as little beliefs as possible that aren’t based on empirical evidence. Especially when it’s something that can be quantified like in this case, which is why I was curious if you were just making things up or had some hard evidence.

[Astaroth]

For everything else, I prefer to have as little beliefs as possible that aren’t based on empirical evidence. Especially when it’s something that can be quantified like in this case, which is why I was curious if you were just making things up or had some hard evidence.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much this can really be quantified. Or rather, how accurately it can be quantified. We're talking about long-term development here, I assume - and in the long-term, exposure to violence on TV or in video games will generally take a back seat to the environment our "test subjects" are growing up in. Not only that, but you're gonna start running into the question of nature vs. nurture also; I'm sure there are children who start torturing small animals based entirely on their own ideas.

Basically, unless you've got some genetic clones growing up in a bubble, some of whom are exposed to sex and/or violence in media and some of whom aren't, there are just too many variables to come up with any truly conclusive evidence, IMHO.

Personally, I think we go to too much trouble to shelter children from most things, and not enough trouble to guide them. Children WILL be exposed to the fact that the world is a rough place eventually, and it's better to have them learn this with an adult there to talk it over rather than on their own. A child who's sheltered too much will, I think, have some major difficulties growing up to be a well-adjusted adult.

Then again, I also think we need to implement birth licenses; after all, if you need a license to be considered responsible to drive, or hunt, or even go fishing for that matter, shouldn't you need one to bring a child into this world and take responsibility for 18 years of their mental and physical growth? It's not exactly a job that any idiot can do, at least not do well. Hell, even a simple multiple-choice test along the lines of this:

Your 1-year-old baby is crying. What do you do?
a. Ignore them.
b. Find out what's wrong.
c. Yell at them to shut up.
d. Yell at them to shut up, and throw something heavy at them.

[DomaDoma]

Poor driving and hunting are a lot more likely to get someone killed than poor parenting is, and government controls on driving and hunting less full of scary possibilities than government controls on procreation. So as for me, I'm agin' it.