Another reason for censors to get all steamed up
- Thread starter Hitman_Leon
- Start date
Exactly. When this person's had a game to play, like the previous titles, he's not stabbed anyone (to our knowledge). It is only when he DOESN'T have a game to play that he stabs someone. The only logical conclusion is thus that the games were the only thing stopping him from stabbing people.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'll grant you that is perhaps slightly more logical than blaming games for violence but definitely the slenderest of margins in it. Fair point though.
If you are going to 'fix' a quote then you should either make it amusing or true, preferably both, that is neither.
Everything in that statment is so wrong.
You cant base fact off '(to our knowledge)' and that hes never stabbed anyone.
And how do you know he doesnt have a GTA game?
There is nothing logical in what you just said.
omg, gta invented gangs and warfare, and knives.
If he had stabbed someone before it probably would have been mentioned in the article. Additionally, if he had stabbed someone before then he most likely would be in prison and thus unable to go stab someone outside a games shop.
I know he doesn't have the CURRENT GTA because he was standing in a queue waiting to buy it. I know he's stopped playing the previous titles because you wouldn't buy the new one whilst still playing through the old ones - you'd wait to finish them first. I implied that he probably did have the old games, read what I said again:
fini said:
Thats wrong really, Theres a big difference between the old a new game, you could still be playing through the old ones or be playing through an older PSP one, and fancy getting the brand new super hyped supposed to be brilliant GTA4, especialyl since it has online when the one you are playing right now doesnt!
How many times have we bought new first person shooters before we'v even finished the old ones??
None because I've never bought ANY game with you.
Personally, I've never bought a game when I'm still playing through the old version.
To get to your main point. We know for 100% certainty that he wasn't playing the game at that precise moment because it would have been mentioned in the article 'during the stabbing the man continued playing on his PSP'. Whether he'd been playing it earlier that day is, I grant, supposition, but it's a fair one to make based on the numerous factors I've previously outlined.
Well thats really clever of you, I meant we as a collective forum, dont get cocky just because I disagree with something.
I meant the PSP arguement as a one saying that you could be playing GTA on another platform but want to play it on the 360, but cant because there hasnt been any 360 GTAs.
He obviously wasnt playing the game in that exact moment in time, but what has that got to do with things?
I meant the PSP arguement as a one saying that you could be playing GTA on another platform but want to play it on the 360, but cant because there hasnt been any 360 GTAs.
He obviously wasnt playing the game in that exact moment in time, but what has that got to do with things?
Total number of people we know of that he's stabbed whilst not playing games = 1
Total number of people we know of that he's stabbed whilst playing games = 0
fini said:
Yes thats true, but its a completely stupid arguement.
Gary Glitter sat on his computer watching kids get abused, Gary Glitter's power goes off, Gary Glitter goes and does what hes been convicted of doing, the logical conclusion is that kiddy porn stopped gary glitter commiting further indecent acts. Yes more extreme but its relevant, obviously kiddy porn is illegal, its comparable but not directly comparable.
One could argue that the man as a player of the game(someone who regulaly plays and had played within the past week) had been inspired to stab this person.
I could get some real life targets set up(or use real dolls?) in the garage and beat em senseless with a baseball bat, or stab em repeatedly in the comfort of my own home, then go out and murder aload of people, that doesnt mean the manakins saved more people because they stopped me wanting to go out to kill people..
I agree that GTA shouldnt be blamed, in the majority of cases its just a psycho individual, though GTA could be enough of an inspiration to get someone to go out and assault/murder others, but said individual would have to be pretty dumb/psycho etc.
Gary Glitter sat on his computer watching kids get abused, Gary Glitter's power goes off, Gary Glitter goes and does what hes been convicted of doing, the logical conclusion is that kiddy porn stopped gary glitter commiting further indecent acts. Yes more extreme but its relevant, obviously kiddy porn is illegal, its comparable but not directly comparable.
One could argue that the man as a player of the game(someone who regulaly plays and had played within the past week) had been inspired to stab this person.
I could get some real life targets set up(or use real dolls?) in the garage and beat em senseless with a baseball bat, or stab em repeatedly in the comfort of my own home, then go out and murder aload of people, that doesnt mean the manakins saved more people because they stopped me wanting to go out to kill people..
I agree that GTA shouldnt be blamed, in the majority of cases its just a psycho individual, though GTA could be enough of an inspiration to get someone to go out and assault/murder others, but said individual would have to be pretty dumb/psycho etc.
pretty dumb conclusion to come to. Crime isnt game related, don't jump to a pretty idiotic conclusion like that.
or else this could possibly be true.
Number of people who kill whist not suffering from Cancer=1
Number of people who kill whist suffering from Cancer=0
Cancer cures crime and murders!
(agree with peetee, same message, different form of explaining it)
Last edited:
was about to say agree with you, think you have a better example.
Statistics can be swung either way, fini you should work in politics, you're good at spinning them around so they mean something entirely opposite, shame it doesnt apply when your audience knows the same facts as you and exercises some common sense
Statistics can be swung either way, fini you should work in politics, you're good at spinning them around so they mean something entirely opposite, shame it doesnt apply when your audience knows the same facts as you and exercises some common sense
In your example he went and committed the acts because of lack of kiddy porn. If the power had come back on 2 seconds after it went off, in your example, he would have stayed in doors. In your example, he would thus not have offended if the kiddy porn returned. The kiddy porn's return then could certainly be said to have 'stopped gary glitter committing further acts' that day.
At which point in the game do you stab someone whilst waiting in line to buy a game?
OK, the power doesnt go off, he just decides to go out and sees a kid and abuse them.
Thats it, he goes out to get more kiddy porn and sees a kid, so he abuses them like in the kiddy porn.
You dont stab anyone while waiting in line to buy a game in the game, but you do stab people whilst stood in a crowd of people and someone walks past you, true? Yes.
You're arguement is crap to be honest, you're attention to detail is ridiculous, you are being way too specific which doesnt work when you dont exercise common sense or rational thought.
Thats it, he goes out to get more kiddy porn and sees a kid, so he abuses them like in the kiddy porn.
You dont stab anyone while waiting in line to buy a game in the game, but you do stab people whilst stood in a crowd of people and someone walks past you, true? Yes.
You're arguement is crap to be honest, you're attention to detail is ridiculous, you are being way too specific which doesnt work when you dont exercise common sense or rational thought.
Well you would say that as I'm the one providing hard statistics whereas you've yet to provide a single one.
I object to that and think it's a personal attack as you're implying I'm not exercising common sense. I disagree with you because you're wrong, not because I'm failing to exercise common sense. If you could try to see it from my angle for a moment you'd understand that my argument is based on sound logical principles. I invite you to debate those principles, not debate me and who I am; for that's irrelevant.
I fail to see in any way how the artical blaims GTA?Some people are just, there are no words for this kind of behaviour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7373348.stm
just another reason for some group to blame the game and not the idiot with the knife.