• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maine GOP attack Dem for playing World of Warcraft!

Grant said:
It's the difference between phone sex and genuine sex with another human being.

Sure there's human interaction in either case but there is also quite a difference between the two..
Click to expand...

Hardly, you obviously have no experience in this area.
 
Grant said:
She expressed the thoughts.

I've never expressed them and most people I know haven't expressed them either..Perhaps we just travel in different circles.
Click to expand...

And shooting people in the head in Call of Duty is awesome, doesn't mean I want to get a sniper rifle, and start taking pot shots at the neighbors.
 
Grant said:
It's the difference between phone sex and genuine sex with another human being.

Sure there's human interaction in either case but there is also quite a difference between the two..
Click to expand...

Since traditional board games don't generally involve exchanging bodly fluids (at least I hope not), I'm not really buying that analogy. On a basic level, you're not wrong that interacting with people via a video game isn't the same as interacting with them in person; what doesn't make sense is the implication that the former is worse than the latter.
 
Aderleth said:
Since traditional board games don't generally involve exchanging bodly fluids (at least I hope not), I'm not really buying that analogy. On a basic level, you're not wrong that interacting with people via a video game isn't the same as interacting with them in person; what doesn't make sense is the implication that the former is worse than the latter.
Click to expand...

If it suits you to sit alone and play games over the internet then that's fine. I don;t really care.

But this involves a candidate who is seeking public trust and has said some rather strange things. I can't see how a rational person can vote for her, but you never know.
 
Your Star said:
And shooting people in the head in Call of Duty is awesome, doesn't mean I want to get a sniper rifle, and start taking pot shots at the neighbors.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see how many of those who have been killing people in public places for the last few years have been playing video games of the type you describe. I doubt many of them played bridge.
 
Grant said:
It would be interesting to see how many of those who have been killing people in public places for the last few years have been playing video games of the type you describe. I doubt many of them played bridge.
Click to expand...

There is no scientific correlation between playing violent video games, and committing actual violence.

Seriously, if a democrat attacked a republican for playing a video game, you'd be on my side here, it's quite ridiculous.
 
Grant said:
If it suits you to sit alone and play games over the internet then that's fine. I don;t really care.
Click to expand...

I actually don't play MMO's at all. They're not my thing. I play video games, but they're what I do when I don't feel like interacting with other people (or reading a book or whatever).

Grant said:
But this involves a candidate who is seeking public trust and has said some rather strange things. I can't see how a rational person can vote for her, but you never know.
Click to expand...

See, the part in bold tells me that you really don't know much about video games, which is why the things she said seem strange to you. She was mostly talking strategy, and to a certain extent getting into the **** talking that online gamers frequently engage in. There's no way that's ever going to make sense to you unless you get some exposure to the games themselves. Consequently your contention that no rational person would want to vote for her just sounds small-minded and ignorant.
 
Grant said:
It's the difference between phone sex and genuine sex with another human being.

Sure there's human interaction in either case but there is also quite a difference between the two..
Click to expand...

No, that'd be the difference between dirty talk over the phone and dirty talk in person.

Phone sex....ie talking about sex....and actual sex...ie a physical activity...has far more differences in the situation than just the distance for interaction

Playing monopoly over the Internet with a voice chat setup is only marginally less of a social experience than playing monopoly in person. While it is less social IMHO, it's far from being something that could be claimed as not social or lacking social interaction
 
Grant said:
She expressed the thoughts.

I've never expressed them and most people I know haven't expressed them either..Perhaps we just travel in different circles.
Click to expand...

Perhaps others are able to distinguish that which occurs in a game world, and that which occurs in real life. She expressed the thoughts in the context of a game, and that's really al there is to it. If she's done the same in real life, I'd love to see your evidence. Until then, you're grasping at the same desperate straws as her opponent.
 
This kind of hysteria, so like the hysteria over entertainment thing from D&D in the 70s-80s up to "violent" TV shows, "violent" music, games like DOOM, and onwards is one of the many things turns me off of the idiocy of the Mrs Lovejoy-esque extreme social conservatives in the major party I most closely identify with.

A state candidate on the GOP ticket stooping this pathetically low and frankly retarded would go a long way in making me cast a vote in a manner that's a specific rebuke against themselves
 
Oh, and just for the people that say playing video games is just a waste. Again, top 25% for a class assignment. And not barely top 25%, I had just two points taken off and two of my answers are model answers. Guess I should stop playing Command and Conquer.
 
Your Star said:
And shooting people in the head in Call of Duty is awesome, doesn't mean I want to get a sniper rifle, and start taking pot shots at the neighbors.
Click to expand...

I hope you do not have any aspirations to run for political office, I can see this statement coming back to haunt you.

cue soft spoken political voice over "when discussing a controversial issue she said 'shooting people in the head... is awesome' Your Star - she has violent tendencies and is dangerously disconnected with reality, is this the kind of person we want in office?"
 
soccerboy22 said:
Oh, and just for the people that say playing video games is just a waste. Again, top 25% for a class assignment. And not barely top 25%, I had just two points taken off and two of my answers are model answers. Guess I should stop playing Command and Conquer.
Click to expand...

Check out my post from a couple of pages back (#198) for more in that vein.
 
Sometimes I love twitter despite my hate for it. Someone started a "Santiga for Maine" twitter account, posting tweets as if they're in character:

clacho5lsp.jpg


I seriously now want someone to run into the voting booth yelling LEEEEEEEEEEEROY Jennnnnkinnnnnns in Maine.
 
Fiddytree said:
Let's be honest. The majority of the time, even the most dedicated games teach relatively minor amounts of critical thinking. Sure, some puzzle solving here or there, or whatever, but these things are usually isolated to each game's systems of reality.
Click to expand...
Do you feel the same way about chess?
 
apdst said:
I wouldn't have even participated in this thread, if not for the suggestion that the folks that don't play vidoe games, or at least spend a limited amount of time playing them are the folks that are the weirdos.

I was only pointing out that thise folks aren't the weirdos, they're the normal folks, who perform tough, dirty, dangerous jobs everyday, to make a living.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really going to take part until I read this and other posts calling to into question the implications of some of these games.

1. Indeed, non-gamers are weird? I scoff. The world got along plenty fine without games and gaming culture. Why should we be expected to acquire this habit and devote hours to it in order to be considered, "normal"? As I understand it, the woman in question spent 22 hours a week, when she was actively participating. I don't like to impugn others for what they choose to do in their leisure time, especially as I sit here on this forum. There are many who don't understand the pleasure in that, but I will say, when I've watch the kids gaming in my home, they are less given to being distracted, like when people are talking to them. They will not quit easily until they've gotten to a particular point so they can quit without losing whatever they've "accomplished". This alone, puts it in a different class than TV, movies, books or even board games. Those can immediately be set aside, but the inability, almost universally, of a player to just walk away at any point lest they give something up in the game, troubles me.

2. Yes, I'm going to go there, violence. Full disclosure, I owned a Colleco console as an adult. I played until I had kids, not every day or even every week, but now and again. My first, and only computer game was Wolfenstein. It came with my first computer. I thought it very violent, but then I reasoned, they're Nazis. I didn't last long on that and it was over for me.

Over the years, I've watched the games on the computer, PlayStation and XBOX, become more and more personally violent. Grand Theft Auto, "if you shoot the hooker, you can get your money back", and others that give the player the chance to completely abandon all social mores without consequences, alarm me. Spending hours in these "worlds" where one is encouraged to kill, steal and the like, or in one case, it was explained to me won't allow you to protect the innocent. I can't remember the name of that game, but if you do, you die, period.

I, personally, would get no enjoyment from spending hours killing. I'm not more moral or anything, it just goes against my nature. Endlessly considering how to kill things and then do it, by very violent means, is distasteful for me. So I wonder, why do others like it? Is it healthy? Do they feel even the smallest twinge when they kill the hooker after wards to get their money back? Steeping oneself in violence for hours at a time, it must have some kind of effect. Over and beyond what has been discussed about movies, TV, books and board games.
 
muciti said:
Someone else probably already hit on this, but i stopped here to comment. You can hit 85 in WoW without hardcore gaming. In fact if she had been playing since the beginning she could be 85 probably playing 1-2 hours a week. I don't see the issue here.
Click to expand...

It's not an issue - it's a political ad. An effective political ad creates an issue and either blames it on the incumbant or lionizes them for it (depending upon who sponsored the ad). Apparently this is a successful ad in that it has called the defenders out in full force. Once that happens then the ad makers know they've struck pay dirt.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Do you feel the same way about chess?
Click to expand...

To a smaller extent. I admit that I forget about games like Civilization (mostly because it is a minority player, albeit, with dedicated support), but again, its basis in reality is with a large grain of salt.
 
Grant said:
Because there is live human interaction with those games, there is a social aspect with real people. That's the real difference it seems.
Click to expand...

When I play Borderlands I usually play with two other friends who come over and we make a night of it. Its a great way to socialize.
 
Gina said:
I can't remember the name of that game, but if you do, you die, period.
Click to expand...

There was one such instance in the first mandatory, turned-optional introduction scene in Modern Warfare 2.
 
Fiddytree said:
There was one such instance in the first mandatory, turned-optional introduction scene in Modern Warfare 2.
Click to expand...

Ah! I'm sure that was it! Thanks Fiddy. That really seemed immoral to me.
 
Gina said:
I wasn't really going to take part until I read this and other posts calling to into question the implications of some of these games.

1. Indeed, non-gamers are weird? I scoff. The world got along plenty fine without games and gaming culture. Why should we be expected to acquire this habit and devote hours to it in order to be considered, "normal"? As I understand it, the woman in question spent 22 hours a week, when she was actively participating. I don't like to impugn others for what they choose to do in their leisure time, especially as I sit here on this forum. There are many who don't understand the pleasure in that, but I will say, when I've watch the kids gaming in my home, they are less given to being distracted, like when people are talking to them. They will not quit easily until they've gotten to a particular point so they can quit without losing whatever they've "accomplished". This alone, puts it in a different class than TV, movies, books or even board games. Those can immediately be set aside, but the inability, almost universally, of a player to just walk away at any point lest they give something up in the game, troubles me.

2. Yes, I'm going to go there, violence. Full disclosure, I owned a Colleco console as an adult. I played until I had kids, not every day or even every week, but now and again. My first, and only computer game was Wolfenstein. It came with my first computer. I thought it very violent, but then I reasoned, they're Nazis. I didn't last long on that and it was over for me.

Over the years, I've watched the games on the computer, PlayStation and XBOX, become more and more personally violent. Grand Theft Auto, "if you shoot the hooker, you can get your money back", and others that give the player the chance to completely abandon all social mores without consequences, alarm me. Spending hours in these "worlds" where one is encouraged to kill, steal and the like, or in one case, it was explained to me won't allow you to protect the innocent. I can't remember the name of that game, but if you do, you die, period.

I, personally, would get no enjoyment from spending hours killing. I'm not more moral or anything, it just goes against my nature. Endlessly considering how to kill things and then do it, by very violent means, is distasteful for me. So I wonder, why do others like it? Is it healthy? Do they feel even the smallest twinge when they kill the hooker after wards to get their money back? Steeping oneself in violence for hours at a time, it must have some kind of effect. Over and beyond what has been discussed about movies, TV, books and board games.
Click to expand...

It would seem that while it would make sense that it would desensitize people to play games that are just about mindless violence the research would suggest otherwise but I'm not sure how biased the studies were or if they were biased at all.

on something not directly related to the quoted post i don't see why someone would choose a politician on anything other than their political stances and efficiency at doing their job based on those stances what they do on their own time is not really anyone buisness as long as they have consistently shown they can do their job.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
There was one such instance in the first mandatory, turned-optional introduction scene in Modern Warfare 2.
Click to expand...

I remember that. I have absolutely no problem with that section of the game. Its fake violence. Just like fake violence on T.V. or movies which very few people seem to have a problem with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom