Look, it's their companies and they can do what they want. They don't "have to make quality games" anymore than you have to buy them.
I'm not against government regulation, especially when children are concerned but if these companies want to run themselves into the ground let them.
In case I only agree with "2" and "4".
1. Government regulation of gambling, especially as pertains to minors.
2. Consumer protection against predatory business practices (including truth in advertising)
#2 and #4 are the two big ones. If people want to pay for early access, I have little sympathy, but gambling and deception of customers both clearly fall under areas of government regulation.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
I dont have that burden
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make observations and stick to cause and effect. so most of these posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
if one wants to make the argument that selling lootboxes is immoral but murder simulations are, then good luck with that.
Your comparing something that has no impact on the physical world (Simulated violence), to selling loot boxes which does have a tangible effect on people, you even supported this by stating that violence levels have dropped since the 70's despite media becoming more violent. When games start charging you a dollar to kill someone then I will start to worry.
I would find it hard to believe that simulated violence has no effect on the physical world. Or are the stories of people who say they killed someone because they got the idea from a movie all making it up?
I'd say those people are full of shit even if they don't know it themselves.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
Folks have been enjoying watching violence way before the 70s.
Hello? The Colosseum? If anything, you can simply make the argument that Americans are beginning to migrate back to enjoying that level of violence. To act as if it's some new or alarming trend that humans enjoy watching violence is to be completely ignorant of human history in general.
1. Nobody is making the point that humans enjoy violence more today then before 2. 70s film was unquestionably less violent but that is just a fact it doesnt MEAN anything at all to any point whatsoever. 3. The only side argument that is being made here is that there is a lack of variety, not that one is bad or good, better or worse, just variety.
HOWEVER,
its ironic to be a moral SJW about how a game is sold when the game in question is 100% a Murder Simulator
nobody is making a moral statement about violence other than the people who seem to be debating with themselves.
The point is that nobody cares it's a murder simulator because violence is nature. Most conflicts in nature end in violence, violence in and of itself is neither unavoidable nor, in specific instances, unwarranted.
I don't remember the last time a whitetail buck sat down with its predator to shoot some dice. Maybe that's why folks seen more sensitive to gambling than violence.
I dont care.
again I am not making a moral statement. I am just making an A-moral observation.
Its ironic to be a moral SJW over how a game is sold when the game in question is a murder simulator.
I am by an large a very a-moral person, I often just make observations and stick to cause and effect. so most of these posts are people debating with themselves, not me.
if that makes sense
if one wants to make the argument that selling lootboxes is immoral but murder simulations are, then good luck with that.
Your comparing something that has no impact on the physical world (Simulated violence), to selling loot boxes which does have a tangible effect on people, you even supported this by stating that violence levels have dropped since the 70's despite media becoming more violent. When games start charging you a dollar to kill someone then I will start to worry.
I would find it hard to believe that simulated violence has no effect on the physical world. Or are the stories of people who say they killed someone because they got the idea from a movie all making it up?
I'd say those people are full of shit even if they don't know it themselves.
I would say it depends on your age, mental state, and ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. As a kid, I could always drift into movies like I was actually the character in it and it was like I was gone until the movie was over. It took me a while of struggling to differentiate between fantasy and reality. I saw violent and sexual things a kid in modern times probably shouldn't see. I don't have the same issue as an adult. As one person pointed out violence is fairly natural. It is a means to show strength and a means to gain food to survive. We just have the luxury as modern humans to avoid it. in many cases.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
You keep getting reality, and fantasy mixed up. There is no irony. You are comparing fantasy violence, to real world gambling, if you can't see it that way, then there is no point conversing further, because no amount of explaining will get you to see the flaw in your logic.
would you find it ironic if I said this then instead
'Its ironic to be very much a moral high standing person defedning the consumer protections when it comes to a question of pornography'
personally? I think you DO see the irony but it doesnt fit with your self view of a moral person so you are conflicted, so your trying to justify it with yourself. that is what I think
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
If one is going to take a moral high ground, be proud, be just! fight for whats right in the world with pride and honour.
They need to work out for themselves why they are doing so over a game that is 100% a murder simulator.
I do not have to do that for myself because my view is not one based on morality
you dont see the irony?
You keep getting reality, and fantasy mixed up. There is no irony. You are comparing fantasy violence, to real world gambling, if you can't see it that way, then there is no point conversing further, because no amount of explaining will get you to see the flaw in your logic.
would you find it ironic if I said this then instead
'Its ironic to be very much a moral high standing person defedning the consumer protections when it comes to a question of pornography'
personally? I think you DO see the irony but it doesnt fit with your self view of a moral person so you are conflicted, so your trying to justify it with yourself. that is what I think
That's a straw man argument if I have ever seen one.
You are implying that pornography is immoral, when sexuality is not immoral, and I strongly disagree that pornography is immoral. Pornography is 100% subjective on whether or not it is moral or not from person to person, so your thought exercise doesn't translate well at all.
I do think it's ironic that you think gambling, violence, and pornography are all the same thing.
no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
If one is going to take a moral high ground, be proud, be just! fight for whats right in the world with pride and honour.
They need to work out for themselves why they are doing so over a game that is 100% a murder simulator.
I do not have to do that for myself because my view is not one based on morality
you dont see the irony?
Who's taking a moral high ground?
You don't like murder simulations. I don't like sleazy business practices. Trying to conjoin the two just seems so nonsensical to me.
GUYS!
I am an a-moral asshole.
Most people you meet in life have a larger moral code then I have, I am looking at this from the outside in. I am not a moral person by most peoples standards of measurement.
I dont like or dislike murder simulators I am saying i find it (from the outside looking in) ironic for a person who considers themselves of high moral value to be defending how a murder simulator is sold. I dont have to agree or disagree with them to make that observation
I dont think violence in fiction is bad...I just think there is too much of it as in not enough variety of others apporaches
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think this obversation I made is something I just need to let go. I found it ironic for someone to take the moral high ground when the content in quesiton is 100% a murder simulator. I found the irony, I understand people here do not. I will drop it I will ask my non-gaming friends and see if they find it just as ironic as I but other that, I am dropping
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I do agree that it's laughable to question the morality of gambling when most of these games include frequent and gratuitous levels of violence. Think about what you can do in Fable, KOTOR, and SWTOR to name a few. If you play evil characters you can hack down people simply because they exist and it sounds fun. In Open World PvP games it's much the same except the characters are controlled by real humans who many proceed to then verbally and mentally torment for the sake of their enjoyment.
It's kind of like I say about government all the time. We shouldn't be legislating morality. You have absolutely no right to shove your morals down other's throats. You have absolutely no right to use government as a tool to shove your morals down other's throats. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to a government that protects those rights.
If you're going to tell my roleplaying someone who cuts people's heads off and tosses it on the floor in front of their wife is more ok than allowing consenting individuals to gamble well. I have no interest in your morals, and really don't want you sitting there debating with me what kind of game models I can and can't play. Lootboxes don't infringe on your rights, so if you oppose them oppose them with capitalism and don't buy them.
I am not making a correlation between virtual violence and real violence. Nor am I personally making a moral statement. I am only making an observation that appears to me to be ironic. nothing more nothing less
YOU and others are the ones who have a moral investment in this subject, I do not. I have nothing more than a cause and effect view on this subject (meaning the question of should goverment regulate). My view on goverment roles is ALWAYS ...hyper A-moral. I look at it purely from a cause and effect standpoint, my positions are purely cause and effect. I think the goverment has no business involved in morality chocies.
maybe that will clear things up a bit
Nope.
I look at goverment choices from a cause and effect standpoint most of the time. Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT. not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
If one is going to take a moral high ground, be proud, be just! fight for whats right in the world with pride and honour.
They need to work out for themselves why they are doing so over a game that is 100% a murder simulator.
I do not have to do that for myself because my view is not one based on morality
you dont see the irony?
You keep getting reality, and fantasy mixed up. There is no irony. You are comparing fantasy violence, to real world gambling, if you can't see it that way, then there is no point conversing further, because no amount of explaining will get you to see the flaw in your logic.
would you find it ironic if I said this then instead
'Its ironic to be very much a moral high standing person defedning the consumer protections when it comes to a question of pornography'
personally? I think you DO see the irony but it doesnt fit with your self view of a moral person so you are conflicted, so your trying to justify it with yourself. that is what I think
That's a straw man argument if I have ever seen one.
You are implying that pornography is immoral, when sexuality is not immoral, and I strongly disagree that pornography is immoral. Pornography is 100% subjective on whether or not it is moral or not from person to person, so your thought exercise doesn't translate well at all.
I do think it's ironic that you think gambling, violence, and pornography are all the same thing.
no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
No, you're projecting anecdotal evidence of your own life onto his responses. Anecdotal evidence is a poor type of evidence to make any kind of objective argument around.
I do agree that it's laughable to question the morality of gambling when most of these games include frequent and gratuitous levels of violence. Think about what you can do in Fable, KOTOR, and SWTOR to name a few. If you play evil characters you can hack down people simply because they exist and it sounds fun. In Open World PvP games it's much the same except the characters are controlled by real humans who many proceed to then verbally and mentally torment for the sake of their enjoyment.
It's kind of like I say about government all the time. We shouldn't be legislating morality. You have absolutely no right to shove your morals down other's throats. You have absolutely no right to use government as a tool to shove your morals down other's throats. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to a government that protects those rights.
If you're going to tell my roleplaying someone who cuts people's heads off and tosses it on the floor in front of their wife is more ok than allowing consenting individuals to gamble well. I have no interest in your morals, and really don't want you sitting there debating with me what kind of game models I can and can't play. Lootboxes don't infringe on your rights, so if you oppose them oppose them with capitalism and don't buy them.
Capitalism is a complete and utter failure without government oversight.
no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
No, you're projecting anecdotal evidence of your own life onto his responses. Anecdotal evidence is a poor type of evidence to make any kind of objective argument around.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
No, you're projecting anecdotal evidence of your own life onto his responses. Anecdotal evidence is a poor type of evidence to make any kind of objective argument around.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
"no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me
personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an
observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves
'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my
entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy
depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence
btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral
stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me."
I think he was responding to this quote in particular which mainly pertained to pornography which is only immoral because of sexual repression, not because sexuality is intrinsically moral or immoral, it just is.
I never suggested that it is or is not moral.
I am was saying most people who consider themselves moralist consider that to be the case. again, I am a-moral about morality. completely agnostic, I cant stress that enough for the purposes of this conversation.
Most proffesional football players are black. that is an external observation.
Mos moralists consider pornogaphy to be immoral.
I mean guys...seriously? this is a conversation about not finding my observation ironic? really? let me ask some of my friends and family if they see the irony
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
No, you're projecting anecdotal evidence of your own life onto his responses. Anecdotal evidence is a poor type of evidence to make any kind of objective argument around.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really?
First off, nobody in this thread ever said "I'm of high moral standing!" (At least, I don't recall as much from my reviewing the thread) So your argument is irrelevant right off the bat. Second, folks have given you more than one reason why people can enjoy violent video games but not wanna get their wallets fucked at every turn.
no its not, I am not implying anything in immoral, in fact for me personally I see myself as not a person bound by morals. I am making an observation from the outside.
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
No, you're projecting anecdotal evidence of your own life onto his responses. Anecdotal evidence is a poor type of evidence to make any kind of objective argument around.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really?
First off, nobody in this thread ever said "I'm of high moral standing!" (At least, I don't recall as much from my reviewing the thread) So your argument is irrelevant right off the bat. Second, folks have given you more than one reason why people can enjoy violent video games but not wanna get their wallets fucked at every turn.
I would say people said that implictly.
but here is where we are now
1. fictional violence no matter to what degree is not immoral
2. fictional pornography can not be compared to fictional violence in anyway because its not immoral.
3. gambling however is immoral but nobody here is taking a moral high ground on that. 4. its not ironic to want to be a moralist about gambling around a game that is 100% about violence.
I think this conversation is friggin absurd. IMO but ok I got it, I will let it go
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just picture this conversation on how it might look to people not nearly as wise and insightful on the details as everyone here is.
'we want to introduce legistation to regulate gambling in video games because young impressional people can be mainpulated' 'sounds reasonable, what is the game?' 'the game is called Battlefront 2' 'what do you do it in?' 'you kill people' 'anything else?' 'no' 'and kids play this game?'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
what? like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet. I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
Did you really bring up religion as a good standard for morals? Anyone following one of the big three monotheistic religions will have to pick and choose very carefully to avoid all the justifications for violence, human sacrifice, slavery etc. These are texts that many people take literally as the word of god.
I view anyone who uses religious texts as their moral compass as far more dangerous than people who play violent video games for entertainment.
What you said was anecdotal, meaning that you are basing your opinion off of your own experiences, rather than by any empirical evidence but trying to make a broader point beyond that it won't hold up. My experience is opposite of you. Everyone I know looks at porn, and the people I know don't think pornography is immoral.
Irony would entail that something happens opposite of what was expected, with an amusing outcome. I am trying to point out that your getting caught in a logical fallacy by correlating fake violence = real gambling = pornography when they are not on the same levels. Companies are exploiting people with items that you must buy with real money, loot boxes have a tangible effect on people, and trying to compare the morality of a person who is trying to have fun, versus a company that is maliciously exploiting that person for real money is where morality comes into play for me.
These companies know exactly what they are doing, and they are trying to push people as far as they can without backlash, and it creates an unrealistic cycle of more repetition, and less innovation, and all they see are profits.
so you are suggesting one can not say 'most relgious people believe murder is wrong' because that would be anecdotal?
really?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Cool story Sean, maybe you should lobby for stricter ESRB ratings?
Still has nothing to do with predatory or deceptive monetization practices.
the observation doesnt have to.
I am just trying to help you out on how this looks to people who are not nearly as insightful on the details as you are. so consider that when you try to 'sell it' (if you will) to people outside your bubble because they will likely see you as mad
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Cool story Sean, maybe you should lobby for stricter ESRB ratings?
Still has nothing to do with predatory or deceptive monetization practices.
the observation doesnt have to.
I am just trying to help you out on how this looks to people who are not nearly as insightful on the details as you are. so consider that when you try to 'sell it' (if you will) to people outside your bubble because they will likely see you as mad
By the coverage on the internet and politician's involved.... They would likely give you a puzzled look, not me.
Comments
1. Government regulation of gambling, especially as pertains to minors.
2. Consumer protection against predatory business practices (including truth in advertising)
#2 and #4 are the two big ones. If people want to pay for early access, I have little sympathy, but gambling and deception of customers both clearly fall under areas of government regulation.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Sometimes the cause and effect works with conventional 'morality' but that is not why I support an idea.
For example, I think if we have a centralized authority making design choices on games that it will in the long run kill creativity and variety of game design which is why I think we should be very careful what we decide to regulate. I also think a precedent will be created. such that if something like the choice of how to spend $10 on an entertainment product becomes regulated then everything will become regulated. I feel that if I wanted to start a game, I would be buried in red tape and not able to make creative choices becasue of who make be in authority.
CAUSE and EFFECT.
not a moral judgement.
others (not me) are faced with the moral problem becasuse they think games should be regulated from a MORAL stance instead of a cause an effect stance. Thus THEY have the burded of explaining to themselves and others why one thing (selling lootboxes) is an outrage morally but a murder simulator is not.
I dont have that burden
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Business practices are not video games.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
If one is going to take a moral high ground, be proud, be just! fight for whats right in the world with pride and honour.
They need to work out for themselves why they are doing so over a game that is 100% a murder simulator.
I do not have to do that for myself because my view is not one based on morality
you dont see the irony?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
'Its ironic to be very much a moral high standing person defedning the consumer protections when it comes to a question of pornography'
personally? I think you DO see the irony but it doesnt fit with your self view of a moral person so you are conflicted, so your trying to justify it with yourself. that is what I think
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You don't like murder simulations. I don't like sleazy business practices. Trying to conjoin the two just seems so nonsensical to me.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
most people who consider themselves 'moral' consider pornography as bad. I lived around people like that my entire life. I DONT think its immoral but its:
'fantasy depiction of something that is considered to me immoral' like violence btu the irony has to be explained? you dont have to AGREE the the moral stance to see it ironic
personally I think you are debating with your own moral guidepost more than with me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am an a-moral asshole.
Most people you meet in life have a larger moral code then I have, I am looking at this from the outside in. I am not a moral person by most peoples standards of measurement.
I dont like or dislike murder simulators I am saying i find it (from the outside looking in) ironic for a person who considers themselves of high moral value to be defending how a murder simulator is sold. I dont have to agree or disagree with them to make that observation
I dont think violence in fiction is bad...I just think there is too much of it as in not enough variety of others apporaches
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think this obversation I made is something I just need to let go. I found it ironic for someone to take the moral high ground when the content in quesiton is 100% a murder simulator. I found the irony, I understand people here do not. I will drop it
I will ask my non-gaming friends and see if they find it just as ironic as I
but other that, I am dropping
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's kind of like I say about government all the time. We shouldn't be legislating morality. You have absolutely no right to shove your morals down other's throats. You have absolutely no right to use government as a tool to shove your morals down other's throats. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to a government that protects those rights.
If you're going to tell my roleplaying someone who cuts people's heads off and tosses it on the floor in front of their wife is more ok than allowing consenting individuals to gamble well. I have no interest in your morals, and really don't want you sitting there debating with me what kind of game models I can and can't play. Lootboxes don't infringe on your rights, so if you oppose them oppose them with capitalism and don't buy them.
like I said I (for the most part) am a person not bound by morals more so then most people you will meet.
I am just making an observation as an outsider that its ironic for a person (not me) to consider themselves of high moral standard to be complaining about gambling in a video game that is 100% about killing.
again...as an outsider looking in that is what I see.
you are now suggesting that morality against violence is anecdotal? that my grandmother who went to church every week is anecdotal? that I do not have an understanding of the general moral system of those who consider themselves moralists? That looking at Gandi as a moral guidepost of what moralists think is anecdotal? really? that what jesus said and what people follow him on regarding their views on violence is.....anecdotal?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am was saying most people who consider themselves moralist consider that to be the case.
again, I am a-moral about morality. completely agnostic, I cant stress that enough for the purposes of this conversation.
Most proffesional football players are black.
that is an external observation.
Mos moralists consider pornogaphy to be immoral.
I mean guys...seriously? this is a conversation about not finding my observation ironic? really?
let me ask some of my friends and family if they see the irony
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. fictional violence no matter to what degree is not immoral
2. fictional pornography can not be compared to fictional violence in anyway because its not immoral.
3. gambling however is immoral but nobody here is taking a moral high ground on that.
4. its not ironic to want to be a moralist about gambling around a game that is 100% about violence.
I think this conversation is friggin absurd. IMO but ok I got it, I will let it go
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
'we want to introduce legistation to regulate gambling in video games because young impressional people can be mainpulated'
'sounds reasonable, what is the game?'
'the game is called Battlefront 2'
'what do you do it in?'
'you kill people'
'anything else?'
'no'
'and kids play this game?'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Still has nothing to do with predatory or deceptive monetization practices.
I view anyone who uses religious texts as their moral compass as far more dangerous than people who play violent video games for entertainment.
really?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am just trying to help you out on how this looks to people who are not nearly as insightful on the details as you are. so consider that when you try to 'sell it' (if you will) to people outside your bubble because they will likely see you as mad
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
-Verenath-