Violent Video Game Burning

[MerinPally]

"Let's solve an issue of violence by starting a massive fire and chucking everything in it that we think could cause a problem"

They might as well throw themselves in whilst they're at it.

[Trunksee]

"Let's solve an issue of violence by starting a massive fire and chucking everything in it that we think could cause a problem"

They might as well throw themselves in whilst they're at it.

Um noone is going door to door rounding these things up like book burnings by the.church. They are simply giving parents an opportunity to be parents. Looking into what your kids do is part of being a parent. These parents are doing more than most by actually doing something. So every kid no matter the age should be able to view anything? Your saying ratings mean nothing then. If parents are finally seeing there short comings of a 10 year old owning call of duty or Saw finally something got through.to them. Its a voluntary act not forced. This is whats making yall look like idiots by comparing the two.

[Promark]

I'm not up in arms. I'm explaining why people reacted a certain way. Explained it a little further in the post following your giant wall of responses. You are clearly not unaware of the "book burning" connotations and the images that the phrase conjures. It doesn't matter if it's true. Public perception, as evidenced here, will kill any good intentions the group may have had because of poor wording.

Also, to respond to your more recent post, I don't think this group has done anything wrong, nor do I think the hate is justified. I understand why. That is all. I understand and agree with every point you've made. I'm trying to express why others are up in arms. You also missed the sentence where I very clearly said: I'm not saying this is what they said, I'm saying this is the connotation. In other words, this is what people hear.

But who says that isn't exactly what they want? Without the part of asking for the media with the intent to destroy it, there is no "controversy". Without that controversy, there is no story and nobody gives a flying fig about it, leaving things as they were. It's just that the fools posting here haven't even read the story and they are talking about how much of an outrage it is and the scapegoating going on, etc. It really isn't such a big deal if they would read 2 min worth of material.

[-aiko-]

"The group's action is not intended to be construed as statement declaring that violent video games were the cause of the shocking violence in Newtown on December 14th," according to a statement from the organization. "Rather, SouthingtonSOS is saying is that there is ample evidence that violent video games, along with violent media of all kinds, including TV and Movies portraying story after story showing a continuous stream of violence and killing, has contributed to increasing aggressiveness, fear, anxiety and is desensitizing our children to acts of violence including bullying."

In case anyone missed this. I'm not even so sure they are wrong...violent video games, movies, books, songs, everything should be more difficult to access for children and yes, teens. This type of entertainment should be exclusive to adults, and adults should be more careful about making these so easily accessible to children. They are not directly to blame for any of these events, obviously, and I do not believe there is any real correlation between a person enjoying violent media and a person being a violent psychopath. But I do agree that our youth is desensitized to such things, and perhaps a heightened sense of aggressiveness is a result of the common occurrence of violence in media.

/meh

[darkwarrior42]

Um noone is going door to door rounding these things up like book burnings by the.church. They are simply giving parents an opportunity to be parents. Looking into what your kids do is part of being a parent. These parents are doing more than most by actually doing something. So every kid no matter the age should be able to view anything? Your saying ratings mean nothing then. If parents are finally seeing there short comings of a 10 year old owning call of duty or Saw finally something got through.to them. Its a voluntary act not forced. This is whats making yall look like idiots by comparing the two.

Saying that this is a voluntary event changes very little. It's nice that they're not forcing people to participate, but the very idea of a book/movie/game burning is so archaic and so opposed to the spirit of the first amendment that even having the event is proof of their lack of intellect. They're responding based on fear and stereotypes, and using a thin veneer of logic and reason along with a large amount of guilt to try to convince people to participate. They're also defaulting themselves to a moral high ground so that if people attempt to argue with them, instead of discussing whether or not what they're doing is a good idea, they can trivialize any arguments you use by saying you don't care about children or violence in schools or whatever sounds the worst.

If they simply were discussing violent video games, and whether parents know what their children are doing, that would be fine. If some parents individually came to the conclusion that their children shouldn't immediately be allowed to play every video game, that too would be fine. We have ratings for a reason. But that is not what's happening here: there is a financial incentive to destroy games/media. That's not about discussion or thought, that's about fear-mongering and ignorance.

[Promark]

Saying that this is a voluntary event changes very little. It's nice that they're not forcing people to participate, but the very idea of a book/movie/game burning is so archaic and so opposed to the spirit of the first amendment that even having the event is proof of their lack of intellect.

You mean the amendment which allows people the right to have an assembly and allows them to share ideas that may not be popular?

[chadwix]

Has anyone said what benefit violent video games provide society?

[Daws]

Are games covered by freedom of speech in the states if so does burning them violate the first amendment? I'm thinking if so then surely what we need is a lawyer to start suing these people.

[Libram]

It's a brilliant idea for used and trade game stores such as Gamestop.
All they need to do is go under alias in the name of "burning violent video games," and take what they have collected for re-sell.

Where there's idiots, there's profit to be made!

[rhorle]

If they simply were discussing violent video games, and whether parents know what their children are doing, that would be fine. If some parents individually came to the conclusion that their children shouldn't immediately be allowed to play every video game, that too would be fine. We have ratings for a reason. But that is not what's happening here: there is a financial incentive to destroy games/media. That's not about discussion or thought, that's about fear-mongering and ignorance.

How is offering a reward for doing an action fear mongering and ignorance? The local area chamber of commerce is offering the gift certificates in hopes it is used towards a local form of entertainment (the article suggests a local water park). The financial incentive is there not to destroy games or media but to encourage people to take a look at what media they have in their lives.

The only ones bringing fear mongering and ignorance into the equation are those, like yourself, that are attacking them for what they are doing. Honestly read the article, and read the article that inspired their actions.

Also it is not a video game burning. It is a remove violent media from your household event. The media is destroyed, but why is that such a problem? What else do you want them to do with it? Sell it? Keep it in a box in a storage unit for eternity? They are only burning it because that is what happens with an incinerator. Again the only ignorance and fear mongering here isn't the group holding the event but those protesting the group with silly arguments that don't even apply or reference this specific event.

[Themius]

Burning games = pollution.

These people are going to pollute the earth doing something unnecessary.

[rhorle]

These people are going to pollute the earth doing something unnecessary.

Industrial incinerators used to dispose of garbage have filters and strict regulation to insure they do not release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. They may pollute but not anymore then a standard landfill.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Burning games = pollution.

These people are going to pollute the earth doing something unnecessary.

If these folks were doing it in my neighboorhood I'd be pissed. My Dad has -1/3 of a lung thanks to surgery to get rid of cancer so it's hard for him to breathe.

[rhorle]

If these folks were doing it in my neighboorhood I'd be pissed. My Dad has -1/3 of a lung thanks to surgery to get rid of cancer so it's hard for him to breathe.

A car would give off more pollution then a garbage incinerator. Your dad would be safe from the incineration of the broken pieces of media aka garbage.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

A car would give off more pollution then a garbage incinerator. Your dad would be safe from the incineration of the broken pieces of media aka garbage.

If it was happening over here. Still think this is a waste of time anyways >.>

[Deleted]

Why not just recycle them for the materials?

[Lagwin]

So death by the Fumes/smoke from the burnt games? that would make my day :P

[Deleted]

Why recycle something when you can burn it for now good reason!

[breadisfunny]

Why not just recycle them for the materials?

recycling now thats crazy talk!

[Blood Fox]

you know, the first thing I do after playing Grand theft auto is to commit grand theft auto.
After I play halo I go around shooting aliens
After I play diablo I go and hunter demons with my crossbow
after playing wow I go to the nearest human and bash their skulls in screaming " for the dark lady!"