kipperthefrog Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Either the people in charge are extremely paranoid, or it is another "control" thing. there are a lot of cases where students said somthing and didn't mean it and got in big trouble for it. I saw on the news about a kid who got suspended for bringing a nail clipper. QUESTIONS FOE EVERY ONE: what do the powered people expect to acomplish by punishing those who are realy no threat? My guess is they want to make themselves look good by "catching" them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Just yesterday, a high school in colorado had a fatal stabbing. Two studets were fighting and the other pulled a knife and killed the other. Now why can't they find a knife and put this kid who brought the knife in some juvy hall, but they sure can arrest little girls to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 Police imcompetence. plus, little girls are easier to get a hold of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted January 5, 2005 Author Share Posted January 5, 2005 Originally posted by Feanaro Just yesterday, a high school in colorado had a fatal stabbing. Two studets were fighting and the other pulled a knife and killed the other. Now why can't they find a knife and put this kid who brought the knife in some juvy hall, but they sure can arrest little girls to jail. they don't realy care. They just want to punish the little girls who bring scisors to make it look like they are doing something. Scare the potential weopon bearers maybie. isn't it strange how the real threats get through and harmles people get all the heat? Even stranger they blame the video games instead of the education system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 I wouldn't be surprised... this is an outrage, but I stopped trusting US police ages ago... Once we had a "choices day" which consisted of going to various class rooms to listen to presentations. For example "Self-esteem", "drug stories as told by teens", etc. Well, I went to this law/police thing and this cop spent an hour telling us about how we'd go to jail if we trespassed, wrote on walls, etc. She did touch on drugs and shoplifting, but that's it for serious stuff. As an example she mentioned two people who got jailed for sneaking into school at night and throwing a football to each others. Someone protested that it wasn't fair and some "adult" chick cried out "life's not fair" (who else hates that cliche:p)? Rape, murder, robbery? Nah, not important. Writing on walls? Throwing a football in the school grounds after closing time? Skipping school? Better send a policewoman down to pass around handcuffs and show a video from a Youth Detention Centre to scare kids away from doing that... On the other hand, this friend of mine (15) got raped and the cops never even cared to bring the guy who raped her into custody (not a matter of insufficient evidence, mind you). They litteraly did nothing. So at least they've got their priorities straight. Bottom line: As cool a country as it is, the USA's a goddamned police state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Originally posted by kipperthefrog Either the people in charge are extremely paranoid, or it is another "control" thing. there are a lot of cases where students said somthing and didn't mean it and got in big trouble for it. I saw on the news about a kid who got suspended for bringing a nail clipper. QUESTIONS FOE EVERY ONE: what do the powered people expect to acomplish by punishing those who are realy no threat? My guess is they want to make themselves look good by "catching" them. Off the cuff response [sorry, didn't realize the pun I was making until after posting!]: 1) To make an example of them. If they appear to be the gestapo, they figure they'll scare the serious offenders from trying anything. "Wow, if even a small thing like that couldn't be gotten away with, etc" OR 2) They're idiots who are paranoid, and wanting to keep up the image of safety (like someone else said) so the do stupid things that end up not accomplishing much. Sounds like a case of overreaction to me here though. The thing about Columbine is that none of these types of security things would make any difference. At columbine they had security cameras even. Sure, it may have saved a few more lives, but they wouldn't have prevented it. I mean the two guys killed a bunch of people then offed themselves. If you're going to kill yourself anyway, then you've got nothing to lose. Those kinds of characters really can't be reasoned with. You'd have to catch them before they acted (how are you going to do that unless they come to school with the bombs and guns in their bag or something?) or while they are acting (with luck, wound them and take them into custody). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Even stranger they blame the video games instead of the education system? With all due respect, Mr. Frog, 3 000+ studies prove violent video games played by kids make those kids more violent. I've never seen a study showing that kids learning about World War II in school get more violent... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 3 000+ studies prove violent video games played by kids make those kids more violent.Three-thousand plus independent studies which have offered incontrivertable proof eh? These I have to see. Let me see them. They just want to punish the little girls who bring scisors to make it look like they are doing something.Exactly my thoughts, frog. [rant] It's a sad fact, but our punitive justice systems are only there to do two things: 1. keep law-abiding people in line. 2. Prevent large-scale mayhem that may disrupt government. Our justice system does nothing for prevention. Our police are not ALLOWED to prevent crime. The system is weighted in favour of criminals when it comes to prevention. We have many laws to stop "harassment" of criminals, but (inversely proportionately) few laws that protect the victim from BECOMING a victim. The police (in my country, certainly) arrest very few muggers, rapists, burglars... They do penalise motorists and smokers, though. Oh, and they beat peaceful anti-war demonstrators over the head when possible. These are relatively law abiding people. Why crack down on law-abiding people? Because criminals are only a minor annoyance to our government. Muggers and burglars don't have any negative impact on the economy, far from it. People who have been robbed have to go out and buy new items. That's why they're not a focus for our law-enforcement. But if ORDINARY law abiding people started stepping out of line, the government would be impacted. That's why they crack their whips when we show signs of independent thought. [/rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Three-thousand plus independent studies which have offered incontrivertable proof eh? These I have to see. Let me see them. I didn't say plus independent studies. I said 3000 studies. And perfect? Probably not. I'll show you what I have as soon as I can. It's not much more than a source for what I already said, though. But think about it, a lot of studies are done globally all the time. 3000 isn't really an unrealistic number, in my opinion. The police (in my country, certainly) arrest very few muggers, rapists, burglars... They do penalise motorists and smokers, though. Oh, and they beat peaceful anti-war demonstrators over the head when possible. In Norway, a person can only go to jail for rape if the victim offers resistance:rolleyes: . And even if he does go to jail, it's most often for only two years or so, then he's set free. However, there's a large-scale campaign to prevent speeding and other traffic violations. The fine for speeding is now... what was it, $300? I'm not excaggerating here. So speeding=bad. Rape=OK if the victim is scared of you (which "never" happens, huh) . Add to that the people who are allowed to go out of jail temporarily for "good citizenship" or whatever, only to go commit some heinous crime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Video games don't make people more violent. No matter how many "studies" are done. Only someone that is dangerously mentally-unstable could truely be effected by violent video games. *Cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 If a 5-year-old gets GTA: Vice City, he won't be unaffected by it. To say the least. "Studies" in quotation marks? Studies that disagree with you are still studies, friend. The "only the weak are affected" argument does not hold water, to be frank. War games and FPS games do soften your perception of what fighting is like. People who don't play such games are far more emotional about war in reality than people who don't. Proven fact. Good idea linking to an excellent, well-researched paper that opposes your view (joking, you obviously meant the ensuing discussion). Agreed. Plus games don't tell you to get violent or hurt anybody nor do they make you do negative things. One could get ideas rom games but the person has total control and choice of what they do, not video games. Plain wrong and contradicting. First it's said that "well, they're mentally unstable", and then it's said that they're "in 100% control"? Wake up. And violent games do tell you "this is neat". No game cover has the phrase "this game is horrific and thus sucks". As for the "well, their parents should have seen it" argument: With all due respect, if there was a 100% surefire way to tell that a person is going to commit suicide or murder, I'd be a lot happier. But in most cases, it's dang near impossible, even if you have a degree in psychology and is a veteran in the field (ask anyone who's been a therapist for several decades). And thus, many people, not just the "weak", as you put it, TK, start associating guns, bombs, and conflict with fun, because they've played it in a game. Take a person playing RTS games. He'll start thinking fighter planes are cool (I do). Play skiing games and you'll think skiing is cool. Play a soccer game and it could get you interested in soccer. That's not to say he'll necessarily be violent, or a skier, or a soccer player, but it certainly means he's affected by it. Basic psychology: Associating things with other things, as proven by numerous people, including Pavlov and his drolling doggie. And face it, those kids at Columbine wouldn't have gone on a killing spree without violent video games and movies. Why? They wouldn't have seen a gun fire. But their unstable brains started associating guns with fun and thus... I'm not saying games are to blame for those two being unstable in the first place, but you see what I'm getting at, right? A lot of children who finally snap and kill themselves or others are thrown over the edge by movies or games glorifying suicide or homicide. You simply have to admit that, no matter how much you love violent movies/games. Take this example from the article you was so kind as to link to: On February 25, 2004, police in the United Kingdom found the body of fourteen year-old Stefan Pakeerah. He was beaten to death by a claw hammer and stabbed, it was later discovered that Stefan was murdered by his best friend, seventeen year-old Warren LeBlanc. The two had been playing a video game called “Manhunt”, in which both the claw hammer and knife are used to kill enemies. The game is Stefan’s father, Patrick Pakeerah calls for a ban on this game because of the death of his son Police believed that the two were acting out a scene in the game and it went too far. I'm not saying the game made him unstable. But I'm saying it made him kill that friend of his because of what he saw in the game. It'd be a too huge co-incidence otherwise, wouldn't it? "Oh, it's identical to that game I played before that? Geez, I didn't realize!" Nah. I'm not saying we ban violent games and movies. BUT - Follow ESBR ratings, they're there for a reason. Don't give Doom to a ****ing seven year old. Don't take your two year old to see the Passion of the Christ. It's amazing how idiotic people get... - Get better at psychology. As it is boys aren't allowed to be sensitive and nobody has a clue as to what therapy or psychiatric hospitals are all about - most have a completely skewed picture (like I did before I got admitted). Also, you only focus on serious stuff like murder. What about less serious things like martial arts being acted out because of a game? Simply too many cases exist to deny that. And you don't have to be unstable or "weak" or whatever to beat someone up, you know;) . Just pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 This debate could be done to death, but since it's pretty off-topic, I'll refrain from continuing it. *Note this is not admitting you're right* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.