The Definition of Hyprocracy

POSTED BY: Redlava
UPDATED: Sunday, December 31, 2006 14:57
VIEWED: 5835
PAGE 4 of 7

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
I like this new trend towards realistic images in TV
Can be seen as a criticism is utterly beyond me.

That’s because, as usual, you intend it to be beyond you, because it’s not what you want to hear. What I actually said, without your massive deletion, was:

“As for violence in the media and video games, I think it probably has gone too far. I like this new trend towards realistic images in TV, but I think it’s sometimes a bit much for children.”

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I don't recall seeing a news story about how a film or music made someone kill a bunch of people. Pretty much every time something like that happens the finger is pointed at games.

Okay, evidently, you’ve missed the whole ‘gangsta rap’ controversy that has been raging for the past 15 years.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Because no thread ever goes off topic in the RWED? I said much of this thread, indicating the content not necessarily the first post. Maybe you'd like to reread what most of the content of this thread has been about since you're having trouble with this. . . . I said much of this thread is talking about how bad video games and their marketing is, and it is, plainly so. Why do you act like you don't know this?

And perhaps if you reread this thread, you might discover that the only one critical of violence in video games (or TV) in this thread, so far, is me.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think the major problem here is how often Christian groups are damning violent video games, I imagine Cartoon is often nodding along to these sentiments too. However when the game includes a Christian message there's not a peep, and indeed Cartoon pops up to defend the game. That would be hypocrisy.

Except for the Christian group mentioned in the original articles. Although, the game in question is rated Teen, not Mature. So the game has actually been rated as appropriate content for teenagers. Unlike games like Grand Theft Auto, which are rated Mature, but still sold to minors. So I’m not really sure why there’s a controversy at all, with regard to this particular game.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
GTA may be more violent, I don't know I haven't played this game, however I do know that GTA does not moralise the violence within it. You could argue it desensitises to violence, but not that it makes it moral. In fact not many games do moralise killing, save the one here, which makes killing non-Christians a moral, even 'good' act as long as you do a bit of prayer to the Christian God afterwards. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

So you prefer a game that depicts pointless displays of violence as opposed to violence with a moral or righteous purpose? I suppose you really hate games like ‘Call of Duty’ that display British Commandoes during WWII fighting Nazis. You would prefer a game in which Nazis needlessly massacred Jews?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, December 23, 2006 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s because, as usual, you intend it to be beyond you, because it’s not what you want to hear. What I actually said, without your massive deletion, was:

You're continued and blatant attempts to try and illicit a flame are really getting quite boring.

Quote:
“As for violence in the media and video games, I think it probably has gone too far. I like this new trend towards realistic images in TV, but I think it’s sometimes a bit much for children.”

If you think saying you like something is criticising it I'm not the one with the problem. "I like what's on TV, but it's going to far", make up your mind which one it is, do you like it or do you think it's going too far, and get back to me.

Quote:
Okay, evidently, you’ve missed the whole ‘gangsta rap’ controversy that has been raging for the past 15 years.

Evidently you didn't read what I wrote. I said I don't recall any slaughters, like say Columbine, being blamed on music. I guess you have no event since you deflected and dodged the statement rather than answering it.

Quote:
And perhaps if you reread this thread, you might discover that the only one critical of violence in video games (or TV) in this thread, so far, is me.

Well done, and I'm talking to you, and since most of this thread has been a back and forth between you and me nearly all of it has been a discussion on how bad games are I rather think my point is proved. This is very obvious, I don't need to reread anything, I already know this, it is you who is having problems grasping this inordinately simple premise, I can only assume it is deliberate.

Quote:
Except for the two Christian groups mentioned in the original articles.

I never said all Christian groups, that's your strawman again.

Quote:
Although, the game in question is rated Teen, not Mature. So the game has actually been rated as appropriate content for teenagers. Unlike games like Grand Theft Auto, which are rated Mature, but still sold to minors. So I’m not really sure why there’s a controversy at all.

Maybe because, "as usual, you intend it to be beyond you, because it’s not what you want to hear."

You and I have been talking about (among other things) video game ratings. Then you say we haven't been talking about these things and that the thread is about something completely different.

The original post was essentially "isn't it hypocritical to be anti-violent games then produce one to further your message?". The ratings weren't mentioned, but when it suits you you drop the denial and equate it to the original post.

EDIT:

Quote:
So you prefer a game that depicts pointless displays of violence as opposed to violence with a moral or righteous purpose? I suppose you really hate games like ‘Call of Duty’ that display British Commandoes during WWII fighting Nazis. You would prefer a game in which Nazis needlessly massacred Jews?

You really like strawman arguments don't you huh. Call of Duty doesn't moralise the killing in anyway, quite the opposite, it's chock full of how it was a bloody, albiet necessarry, waste of life. The difference is Call Of Duty and GTA don't say "killing is good", which is a message this game does attempt to foster.

People play violent games, I do and from your posts on other threads I believe you do too. I'd prefer a game played by people who realise that's all it is, and one that doesn't attempt to instill that violence is a good moral act. Your protestations would seem to indicate you feel otherwise, you'd prefer games to instil and idea that killing is a good thing?

Perhaps you like games that make killing a good and moral act, but only if it's Christians killing non-Christians?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, December 23, 2006 3:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you think saying you like something is criticising it I'm not the one with the problem. I like what's on TV, but it's going to far, make up your mind which one it is, do you like it or do you think it's going to far, and get back to me.

So according to you, in order to disagree with mature content being viewed by minors I have to disagree with it being viewed by adults? Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that in order for an adult to be involved in adult activities, such as a sexual relationship with another consenting adult, for example, they must condone the same activity among children? I don’t think so. I can approve of the mature content myself, without actually approving of it for children who may be too inexperience, immature or naïve to understand the content.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Evidently you didn't read what I wrote. I said I don't recall any slaughters, like say Columbine, being blamed on music. I guess you have no event since you deflected and dodged the statement rather than answering it.

Once again, you’ve evidently missed the whole ‘gangsta rap’ controversy, which involved the argument that so-called ‘gangsta rap’ is fueling inner city violence, I guarantee you, on a much larger scale then anything you would find at Columbine.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well done, and I'm talking to you, and since most of this thread has been a back and forth between you and me nearly all of it has been a discussion on how bad games are I rather think my point is proved. This is very obvious, I don't need to reread anything, I already know this, it is you who is having problems grasping this inordinately simple premise, I can only assume it is deliberate.

If your point was to argue that only one person has actually criticizing violence in video games, then I suppose it does.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The original post was essentially "isn't it hypocritical to be anti-violent games then produce one to further your message?". The ratings weren't mentioned, but when it suits you you drop the denial and equate it to the original post.

That depends on what is meant by “anti-violent games.” I’m betting that most people would consider degrees of violence that you are ignoring.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You really like strawman arguments don't you huh. Call of Duty doesn't moralise the killing in anyway, quite the opposite, it's chock full of how it was a bloody, albiet necessarry, waste of life. The difference is Call Of Duty and GTA don't say "killing is good", which is a message this game does attempt to foster.

Most certainly it does moralize the killing. That’s the reason why there hasn't been (to my knowledge) a game like that in which the Nazis are the good guys. Wanton and needless violence, like that depicted in GTA, is generally considered to be much, much worse then violence with a moral purpose, and the violence in defense of Britain during WWII is generally viewed as violence with a moral purpose.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
People play violent games, I do and from your posts on other threads I believe you do too. I'd prefer a game played by people who realise that's all it is, and one that doesn't attempt to instill that violence is a good moral act. Your protestations would seem to indicate you feel otherwise, you'd prefer games to instil and idea that killing is a good thing?

Perhaps you like games that make killing a good and moral act, but only if it's Christians killing non-Christians?

I play many violent video games. I’ve even played Grand Theft Auto.

But I don’t view killing as being good, and that is why I draw a distinction between killing for a good purpose and killing for no purpose (or a bad purpose). Grand Theft Auto, which depicts the act of killing for no purpose, actually glorifies the act of killing itself.

If killing does have “a good and moral” purpose then I

CITIZEN

Saturday, December 23, 2006 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
much worse then violence with a moral purpose, and the violence in defense of Britain during WWII is generally viewed as violence with a moral purpose.

There is a fundemental difference between killing for a moral purpose and saying killing is morally right. CoD is the former, the game in question is the latter.

Perhaps you think killing non-Christians does make murder okay, I hope not because to my mind that would put in the same league, belief wise as Osama bin Laden. To clarify I don't think you do hold that position, I just think you don't care to realise what I am saying or what my problems with the above truely are.

Quote:
If killing does have “a good and moral” purpose then I’m much more accepting of it then I would be if it were wanton and needless. I suspect though that the problem in this game is not whether it is violent, since you’ve already stated that you prefer games in which violence is depicted for violence sake, as opposed to games that depicted violence to attain a moral purpose. Rather, you’re problem, I suspect, is that this game is, or is perceived to have, a pro-Christian theme, and that’s what you can’t accept.

No, and if you actually listened to what I said rather than trying to mischaracterise me you'd know that.

I don't see the difference between saying killing non-christians is morally right to saying killing non-Muslims is morally right. Maybe you can explain it too me?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Saturday, December 23, 2006 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There is a fundemental difference between killing for a moral purpose and saying killing is morally right. CoD is the former, the game in question is the latter.

According to you, who has never played the game or knows very much even about it. I’ve not played the game either, so I can’t speculate about whether I think the violence is moral or not.

I find it somewhat interesting that you have no problem with depictions of pointless violence, but violence with a Christian morality bothers you. I think that says more about what you think about Christians then about what you think about violence. And more then anything else, I think that is the controversy over this game. I don’t really think it is too much to ask that our society at least worry as much about children being subjected to depictions of pointless violence as depictions of violence with a Christian morality.

Another distinction that comes to mind is that Grand Theft Auto depicts images of violence that resemble the kinds of violence that might occur on an actual American city street. By contrast this Left Behind game depicts images of a post-apocalyptic fantasy world, and in that regard appears much more like fantasy games like Doom, in which the violence is subjected against essentially non-human creatures.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CITIZEN

Saturday, December 23, 2006 11:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
According to you, who has never played the game or knows very much even about it. I’ve not played the game either, so I can’t speculate about whether I think the violence is moral or not.

The idea is to kill non-Christians then a quick prayer makes everything okay. the fact you think that's a good thing speaks volumes.

Quote:
I find it somewhat interesting that you have no problem with depictions of pointless violence, but violence with a Christian morality bothers you. I think that says more about what you think about Christians then about what you think about violence. And more then anything else, I think that is the controversy over this game. I don’t really think it is too much to ask that our society at least worry as much about children being subjected to depictions of pointless violence as depictions of violence with a Christian morality.

I think its somewhat interesting that you find violence morally good as long as its Christians against non-Christians.

Obviously you have no interest in hearing any side but your own, since even when I set you straight you continue the same tired BS. I have no desire to continue this charade with someone who clearly only posts here because they like to see their own words, and only their own, in print.

Take your strawman elsewhere, you bore me.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, December 24, 2006 12:55 AM

I oughtta stay outta this one, but I can't.

WWJD?

Would the guy called the Prince of Peace approve? Would the guy who said , turn the other cheek, suggest shooting folks?
Would the guy who talked about forgiving your enemies seventy times seven times, and rebuked one of his own followers for resisting and cutting off a servant's ear when he himself was arrested, think this was a good idea?

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, December 24, 2006 3:26 AM

Holy crizzapple! This is soooo messed up. Some choice quotes from the links provided by the OP:

Quote:
Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them.

Actually "pacifist" is a typo, he meant to say "pacivish," or kinda like pacifism if you squint and forget that you're gunning people down.

Quote:
"You are fighting a defensive battle in the game," Frichner, whose previous company produced Bible software, said of combatting the Antichrist. "You are a sort of a freedom fighter."

One man's freedom fighter is another man's...uh, pacifist?

Quote:
The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names, while the righteous include gospel singers, missionaries, healers and medics.

Hey! They're only "Muslim-sounding" to you! To me they're just fantasy "foreign" names. You know, like in Conan or something.

Quote:
When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Frichner said the game does not endorse prejudice. But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game.

"That is so obvious," he said.

Uh, hrm, well...they still sound foreign.

Quote:
Jeff Gerstmann, senior editor at Gamespot.com, an online publication, said the game sn't popular. The game itself, which Gamespot rated 3.4 out of a possible 10, has lots of glitches.

"And it's kind of crazy," Gerstmann said. "One of the evil characters is a rock musician. ... If you get too close to him your spirit is lowered."

Go Gamespot!

Quote:
But Plugged In, a publication of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, gave the game a "thumbs-up." The reviewer called it "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior -- and use to raise some interesting questions along the way."

"Daddy, why don't we just kill them all and let God sort them out?"

Quote:
“Our game includes violence, but excludes blood, decapitation, killing of police officers,” the company says on its Web site, noting that a player can lose points for “unnecessary killing” and regain them through prayer.

Obviously, necessary killing causes no spirit penalty.

Quote:
“Part of the object is to kill or convert the opposing forces,” said the Rev. Tim Simpson of Jacksonville, Fla., who heads the Christian Alliance for Progress. “It is antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Aw, what does he know?

Quote:
“The idea that you could pray, and the deleterious effects of one’s foul deeds would simply be wiped away, is a horrible thing to be teaching Christian young people here at Christmas time,” Simpson said.

BO-ring! Gawd, he makes Christianity sound so woosy, y'know? I think that if Christ played video games He would kick ass!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, December 24, 2006 3:38 AM

I'm wondering when we're going to have a game where you play Big Brother and you go around killing anyone who refuses mandatory vaccines.

The sub games will have you playing the role of his evil scientists destroying "gay" genes in babies.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Sunday, December 24, 2006 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
“The idea that you could pray, and the deleterious effects of one’s foul deeds would simply be wiped away, is a horrible thing to be teaching Christian young people here at Christmas time,” Simpson said.
BO-ring! Gawd, he makes Christianity sound so woosy, y'know? I think that if Christ played video games He would kick ass!

But this is good, violence for a moral purpose, it's a very very good thing, making violence a good moral act, ask Finn, he'll tell you all about it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE