Fill in the blank: Jack Thompson is a ______


confused (they should have an entire show where they just argue.)

A fucktard. That’s it.

a) to be pitied

b) a fucktard


Although Jack Thompson IS an idiot, I think that Adam is quite possibly one of the worst possible people they could have got on there to argue. I know that Jack Thompson makes me angry, he makes a lot of gamers angry. The point is, however, that when you are in a debate with someone, you should not get angry and froth at the mouth. That makes the debate lost. Of course, when Jack Thompson said that the first amendment was not the issue… uh… well… I don’t know where he’s been. I guess he thinks that the first amendment doesn’t protect things he doesn’t like. Damn. The KKK can march in towns with high Jewish populations, but Jack Thompson will be DAMNED if the first amendment allows something as HORRIBLE as a T rated game out there.

Interesting, but kinda fanatic loser who no one will listen to.

Let’s forget getting T games off the shelves by law. I think what they need to so is make a law that forbids lonely dipshit dorks from playing these games and get so into it the forget there’s a boundery between the video game world and the real world.

Once the Columbine nerds, the dorks who think they’re the real heroes in Doom and what not are pushed out of the picture, you’ll see a lot LESS video game violence out there in the real world

Hm well he is an idiot; but he didn’t have much time to talk near the end of it or get much a word in edgewise. No duh they seem biased and I’m not sure they were really listening to him, though not like he has much of a point.

Have they done a full show with him or about the topic?

I think one of the game mags let him have an article in which he spoke.

person who thinks other people should think like he does.

All of them seem to love talking about the direct causality of videogames and behaviour, but what they really should have is someone who can reference the effects of the sedentary lifestyle that video games promote and viewing violent images. I’d find that a more complete argument and believable.

Adam Sessler lost his cool. It ruined what was supposed to be a good debate.

Because ‘dipshit loney dork’ is a very precise, objective legal term that most certainly could not be used as a method to just not sell the game to anybody. I mean, how does the fucking STORE CLERK tell if you’re lonely? Do you need to walk in with a significant other, proof of non-dorky activity and take a test to see that you don’t act like a dipshit to buy a video game. I don’t know about you, but if it comes down to that, shoplifting’s easier.

Um, well the guy in doom was a real hero. He killed helldaemons. Killing helldaemons is a good thing. They didn’t idolize him at all, the idolized the IDEAL of solving problems with violence, which cannot be blamed on a single game. Nor can a game be called a trainer. You couldn’t even aim with detail in Doom and Quake, and there’s still the fact that shooting with a keyboard doesn’t train shooting with a gun. I like how there’s still all this media rage over them about video games, but not about the fact that they bought guns.

Anyway, this was one of the worst debates I’ve ever seen. I mean, both sides were embarassing to be in the same genus as, let along species. Or the other way around. Can I say that or is that another one of those things the first amendment says it protects, but doesn’t?

The Game Daily CEO came off quite persuasively. He gave all the right counterarguments at the right times – that parents are far more emotionally influential than video games, that video games should be treated the same as movies and literature, and so on. His comment about Bully, that its developers denied everything that Jack Thompson claimed it was about, was particularly nice.

Adam Sessler, on the other hand, was blathering too quickly and ungrammatically to make an argument.

I don’t know why everyone has leapt on Jack Thompson so quickly, even if he doesn’t know the first thing about video games. He’s arguing that there should be a law preventing the sale of Mature-rated games to children. Also, he wants stricter standards for rating games. Does that make him a ‘fucktard’? Not in my opinion, even though I disagree.

He <i>does</i> refer to studies that link video games to violence, without addressing the obvious counterarguments: violence in movies and literature are just as problematic, and a proper upbringing is far more influential than video games. It is irritating how anti-video game parties never address these things. On the other hand, Jack Thompson is <i>not arguing that we should ban violent video games</i> – just trying to propagate his ideas about them.

There’s no reason to get worked up about it, like Adam Sessler. You end up sounding too angry to be rational – probably not the best state in which to argue about video game violence.

Also, they don’t seem to note that there are just as many studies that prove the opposite. Or the fact that ‘study’ pretty much means ‘we set out with an agenda to prove something and manipulated statistics and data until we got what we wanted’ in modern sociology.

Xwing, I think the comment about the first amendment not mattering is pretty much good reason to leap upon. Also, his fake charity offer. I mean, speaking to the Law professors I know (since that’s what I’m intending to go into as a career, I don’t just chill with 60 year old lawyers-turned-teachers, for the record), that’s almost enough reason to be disbarred, and in just about any other country with a legal system like ours, he would have been for it. Although America doesn’t disbar nearly as much as most Asian and european countries with similar law systems (the same way we don’t charge as often or as much for frivelous law suits as wastes of court time), they still say a public stunt like that is generally a sign of poor conduct and sliminess, even given lawyers’ reputations.

The other argument about banning M rated games to minours and stricter ratings is the obvious political fallout and following of said idea. Next step is the banning of such material i ngames in general, and MPAA-like political censorship in the ratings system (See: The Manchurian Candidate) so that younger people don’t see political commentary in the media, or, in the event of a total banning, it isn’t seen at all. While this won’t definitely happen, it’s a road I’d rather not start on.

I don’t think anyone objects to games being sold according to the rating they’ve received (edit:just don’t get started on how the ratings are awarded). However, Jack Thompson is quick to blame every evil on earth on video games, so he’s not the kind of person who talks rationally either.

Before games were invented and advanced to a level (kind of) resembling reality, weren’t there any killings? I don’t argue that games are pristine. However, millions of violent games have been played by persons who turned out to be (almost) normal, well adjusted individuals and even if all the cases J. T. presents as games-influenced were true, I think they may even fall in the statistical error margin. I’m all for worrying about video games. Can we also check out gun selling issues and the variety of examples in the news, daily? And J.T. may be vocal about violence caused by video games but I haven’t seen him worried by violence due to other reasons.

It’s not as Jack Thompson will read this forum searching for rebuttal anyway. So in short it’s easier to call him a fucktard.

edit: And what, parents? So last century.

That’s just the thing: he was right, the First Amendment <i>was</i> irrelevant to his argument. He’s not saying that violent video games should be banned or censored. He’s arguing that, like R-rated movies, certain video games are inappropriate for <i>children</i> and can have harmful psychological effects. Therefore, selling them directly to children should be legally prevented. This, in turn, would force parents to take responsibility for buying violent games for their children.

It’s just as legal by the First Amendment as restricting the purchase of pornography to adults. Nobody seems to take issue with that.

Again, this is not to say that I agree with Jack Thompson’s arguments. I just think there’s no point discussing something unless you give the other side credit where it’s due.

That still violates the first amendment. Note it doesn’t say anything about restrictions on the freedom if people under an arbitrary legal limit of years of age happens to be in the ability to experience the speech. Oh, and I do object on legal limits on porn sales to minours, thank you very much, along with cigarettes, alcohol, and most other things based on an age limit.
Just to make it clear I’m not just saying this so I can by all this stuff myself, I’d also object to an age-based sale limitation for T games, although I could still buy them.
There’s also the fact of illegalizing selling something that people want just means they’ll obtain it illegally. Kids will simply start shoplifting and pirating games rather than buy them since they aren’t allowed to purchase them. Or, you know, getting a friend or older sibling to buy them for them. The law is utterly inane, essentially. It wouldn’t protect anything, and would be even less effective than the alarmingly ineffective R-movie law.

Back in the fifties the same was said for comic books, they nearly banned superman because of this.

Parents need to get involved, perhaps a class that shows them the different ratings, allows them to play these game, and then a discussion board as to what the feel. Too many parents simply buy games not even realizing nor caring what is on them.

Get parents involved, you solve half the problem.

Tipper Gore would love you. :stuck_out_tongue:

Mandatory parenting classes where the state teaches you how to raise your children by playing state selected games of a certain rating? Huh. Why does that seem like just as big an infringement on people’s rights?

What happened to the idea of the government staying out of our damn business until we give it a reason not to? One of my big problems with this whole gaming thing is it treats, like many other laws, minors like criminals, where we’re considered unstrustworthy before we violate anybody’s trust.

Maybe then we could save all the rainforests and then stop drilling for oil THINK OF THE ANIMALS

You have to realize that most parents just don’t give a fuck. Getting involved requires that. It’s much easier to just buy something and throw them at the TV until they complain/kill someone then OH GOD WHAT DID I DO WRONG :C

Addendum: If they don’t already care enough to take 10 seconds to check what’s listed on the “M: THIS GAME HAS TITS, ASS, AND MAYBE SOME BLOOD YOU SACK OF SHIT” warning, then what makes you think they’re going to take classes to understand the fragile psyche of their children and what these horrible games will do to their 16 year old minds oh wait they’re 16 they should have been taught right from wrong 10 years ago.