http://www.gamezine.co.uk/news/formats/xbox360/all-violent-vid eo-games-be-banned-in-germany-$1301757.htm
Madness!

Yeah, but those fools will never achieve sth. this stupid.
The ministers tried that two or so years ago, too, but failed of course.

And this one:


Never heard an argument as bad as this.
Those spree killers (never heard thisexpression ), or how they're called in Germany "Amokläufer" (someone who ran amok) surely drank a cup of coffee, water or a coke before they began shooting.
So that stuff should get banned, too.

Wow, that's idiotic.

I hate it when people quickly blame video games for shootings and other violent things, instead of just thinking that maybe they were on a shooting spree because of how badly they were treated by their peers, or the fact that they were already sick in the head to start with.

I loved one of the comments from that article though.

"They should ban breathing air, too - since those spree killers always breathed that air before they did the crime. And the air contributed at least as much to the crime as video games "


________________

I´m sure Jack Thompson is proud of them,

Don't governments have more important things to do than go after games? This is just as bad as the law they're trying to pass over here about banning hentai because hentai=loli and they produce pedophiles. >.>

Not that I care about it, but they should focus on the more important issues of the country.

Last edited by blakraven66 at 10:18 am, Jun 6 2009

They're taking the easy route.
Why should they bother helping people that are mentally unstable enough to go on a killing spree instead of blaming something and ending the discussion? Saves funds, time and everyone is happy now and bows to the almighty government, even though it's as helpful as massaging a wooden leg.

Until the next killing spree commited by a redneck who lived in a village that never even had electricity, let alone videogames.
What, did they think the crime rate was lower before shooters appeared?

*sighs* You know... they're all running away from the issue of:

"Why do children grow up into people lacking empathy?"

Hint: They're not the psycho killer a la "Hollywood". These people could be the salesperson, that barista tending your counter in Starbucks or even the teacher in your neighbourhood college.

I'll define empathy(from Cambridge dictionary): the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in their situation.

Emotional abuse: "You're useless, you're ugly, you're disgusting, I should have killed you before you were born, you're so stupid you deserve to be raped", etc., etc.

Babies are born with zero empathy and they learn their social cues(how to treat people, empathy, etc.) from the people around them. If they learn nothing but emotional abuse as children, they are definitely not going to learn how to treat others with respect, how pain(verbal, emotional, sexual, mental, etc.) can hurt and cause misery for others, etc. They will not be able to put themselves in others' situations either.

And most often, it's emotional abuse that turns children into creatures that lack understanding of pain of others. But the most important thing is that: they MUST choose to commit an act that hurts and causes misery of others. No one is forcing them, nothing is influencing them. But at the same time, these people likely feel next to no sympathy for their victims 'cos how can you really feel for someone if you don't understand their pain and were never given the chance to learn how to understand the pain of others?

Everyone has different triggers, btw: different limits for pain, understanding of fear, sympathy, etc. so if you put a group of people through % of emotional violence as part of their upbringing, some will break while others won't.

Note: People who've committed an act of violence, and who're remorseless, etc., will always find ways to justify their acts. Ever heard of killers who go "The bible told me so. <This book made me do it.>/<That game made me do it.>"? Why do they say that? Simple. 'Cos then, they don't have to be held responsible for their acts, no? And if they can find someone who's willing to believe and support them, all the better to evade the trials and other legal issues, right?

And as to why no politician wants to tackle this issue. Simple. 'Cos it'd be a career-breaking move as there're too many difficult questions involved and it's always easier to give an ambiguous answer than to do some real soul-searching. Politics are all about careers these days, so you'll never hear a politician go "Oh hey... I'm going to give away all my money to the poor, sell off my assets to establish a fund for the deaf/etc./etc. and oh, also address <these few acts/provisions/etc.> of the legal system which make life difficult for the middle class and poor."

You also won't hear them talk about things like "child-on-child sex abuse" which is defined as: a child having sexual relations with another child. What's wrong with this picture? No, not the "morally wrong" thingy but the fact that until a person has entered the stage of sexual development, he/she can't possess the knowledge about sex: what it involves, how to do it, etc. If a child knows about sex, he/she has had to have learnt from someone else or another source. But how to really do it? Definitely from someone else and often, it's a teenager or an adult.

And back to the topic, I think tackling issue involves things like treating the emotionally broken, addressing the legal/criminal system, etc., stuff which will never be addressed ever.

Last edited by Lord_Lucifiel at 7:39 am, Jun 7 2009

thats tough. i hear that Germany had tougher move ratings on violence than on sexually explicit too.

What is this shit!?

...

Well, doesn't really involve me,
but sucks for them. (Although I don't
really play games focusing on magnling
something so it wouldn't matter that
much even if I was German.)