Missouri Representative proposes tax on “violent” video games

[Patroklos]

Now I've been awake for too long, but I'm not seeing it either, Patro.

FF and Leorath (now) have been near rabid in the gun restriction threads regarding advocating restrictions that have no relation to the problem to be solved (preventing mass killing).

Now we have FF starting a thread lamenting people advocating restrictions that have no relation to the problem being solved (preventing mass killings).

The issue is analogous, yet FF has completely different reactions to each, his reaction to this one unintentionally undermining his position on the other.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I answered you, I am sorry you didn't like the answer

Well you responded to my question, but you didn't answer my question.

I can see why you'd avoid answering it though. Hard not to see that

 

[Patroklos]

I can see why you fain lack of understanding. Hard not to see that

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, I will give your line of argument the constructive reply it doesn't deserve:

Let's suppose the reaction of "game lovers" to this proposal accurately mirrors the reaction of "gun lovers" to gun control proposals, and let's further suppose that the first group happens to coincide with the supporters of gun control laws. Let's also note that these are quite huge assumptions you just made without any real reason.

Then that still doesn't mean that both sides are equally right in their reaction, or that both proposals are equally good/bad. This is what I was referring to when I said your post lacks any actual substance as far as the debate at hand is concerned.

What vexes me on the other hand is how you continue to act as if figuring out this parallel which already stands on flimsy premises to begin with was a grand stroke of genius that proves once and for all that those who disagree with you are "not so different" and frankly, the smug attitude with which you continue to "defend" your position by using the method of inserting non-existent psychological motivations and/or layers of irony into other people's posts which is normally reserved for squabbling fourth graders.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can see why you fain lack of understanding. Hard not to see that

Where do I fain lack of understanding when I just stated understanding? (hint: it's the sentence that starts with: I can see)

Do you want me to explain to you how your response was not an answer to my question? Surely not. I value your intelligence quite a bit higher than that.

 

[warpus]

What makes you think politicians are smarter than anyone else?

They're smart at playing politics, which means interacting with people and kissing the right arses. They excel at that - otherwise they wouldn't be at the top.

They're not idiots. They might not know much about science, or whatever discipline you can think of, but for the most part politicians say and do stupid things because the have their voting base in mind, as well as obligations to the people who support them financially.

I don't think they're really smarter than everyone else, but your average person is not really very informed.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I see that Patroklos would rather spend his energy personally attacking other posters rather than speak up for freedom and justice.

 

[Patroklos]

What vexes me on the other hand is how you continue to act as if figuring out this parallel which already stands on flimsy premises to begin with was a grand stroke of genius that proves once and for all that those who disagree with you are "not so different" and frankly, the smug attitude with which you continue to "defend" your position by using the method of inserting non-existent psychological motivations and/or layers of irony into other people's posts which is normally reserved for squabbling fourth graders.

Hold on there cowboy. I said none of those things. I made a simple comment that the attitude against one of these things is ironic given an analogous situation where said poster has the exact opposite reaction.

The only telling thing beyond that is the entirely irrational overaction of yourself, fained outrage is generally the first admission that you are wrong

It's pretty clear I hit my mark, you might agai want to step back and take a loom at your defensiveness and make this a learning moment for you.

I see that Patroklos would rather spend his energy personally attacking other posters rather than speak up for freedom and justice.

More irony!

What you should be learning from this thread is that I am an ally to those against the regulations I the OP. The question is why many can't be consistent in their logic and similarly be my ally against AWBs.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I see that Patroklos would rather spend his energy personally attacking other posters rather than speak up for freedom and justice.

That's a good point actually.

The gun control debate: Those who are of the opinion that increasing gun control will reduce gun violence may argue in favour of increasing gun control. Those who think increasing gun control may argue against it.

Now here it's not a question of violent games causing gun violence.

If passed, the bill would impose a 1% sales tax to violent games, to be used to finance mental health programs and law enforcement measures to prevent mass shooting

Rather violent games being used to finance what I have seen many people agree are just measures against gun violence.

The issue is not restriction, it's games being used as a way to generate finances against gun violence.

 

[Patroklos]

Why do you imagine the tax is on violent video games and not corn sales?

Let's see if you can be honest about at least that answer

 

[Oruc]

This pic pretty much sums it up:

Spoiler :

And this tax will be ineffective at curbing violent video game sales anyway. Would a 1% tax really stop you from getting GTA V?

That kid shouldn't be playing games like that at his age.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Why do you imagine the tax is on violent video games and not corn sales.

Because it's become a boogieman, just as violent movies, violent music and assault weapons has.

Let's see if you can be honest about at least that answer

Ok, that's enough. Time to put up or shut up.

Show me where I have been dishonest. Not tell me, because you'll make something up as you did in post #5, #20 and #25, but show me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I see that Patroklos would rather spend his energy personally attacking other posters rather than speak up for freedom and justice.

Indeed. At least he is consistent in doing so.

I think the obvious "hypocrisy" and is not saying a word against the politician this case, as well as Wayne LaPierre and the NRA attempting to take an even more draconian position against harmless entertainment. Then having the temerity to mention "hypocrisy" and "irony" in this thread simply because most people in this forum have nothing at all against taking common sense measures to address gun violence. Measures that only really affect criminals and a handful of survivalists who want to prepare for an inevitable Armageddon. After all, this is a gaming forum not an NRA forum.

 

[ace99]

Steam can"t be stopped!

Where's Alpstranger? He's going to cry when he see's this.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

More irony!

What you should be learning from this thread is that I am an ally to those against the regulations I the OP. The question is why many can't be consistent in their logic and similarly be my ally against AWBs.

You don't know my position on gun control, do you?

You also don't understand what iron is, but others pointed that out already.

All I get from this thread is that you're a freedom crusader when it comes to guns control, but when it comes to video games bans you have almost nothing to say on the subject but quite a bit to say about your fellow freedom crusaders.

You're no one's ally here, you're just being an aggressive twerp.

_________
On the tax, I surprisingly have nothing against a 1% tax on violent video games where the funds collected go toward mental health programs and law enforcement.

My only qualms with it are that it will be hard to classify 'violent' video games. I think Kerbal Space Program isn't violent as there isn't any blood in it and the purpose of the game is not inherenlty violent. However, occasionally my kerbals get blown up on the launchpad, though when you can actually see them die, they just go *poof* in a cloud of smoke. Is this violent??

Also, I do fear that such a law may create a lasting association between video games and mass shootings to a greater extent than there already is.

I also do not like the fact that the tax is being used in the same manner as a sin tax where it discourages a behavior when their is no proven link (AFAIK) between video games and mass shootings.


However, I'm not against the tax itself, just the above implications of it.

 

[Patroklos]

I see that Patroklos would rather spend his energy personally attacking other posters rather than speak up for freedom and justice.

You also don't understand what iron is, but others pointed that out already.

...

You're no one's ally here, you're just being an aggressive twerp.

Irony, and then MORE irony!

.
Ok, that's enough. Time to put up or shut up.

Show me where I have been dishonest. Not tell me, because you'll make something up as you did in post #5, #20 and #25, but show me.

How is asking you to be honest in one instance accusing you of not being so in others? Of course given the rest of your post it's now known you were being disingenuous when you claimed I hadn't answered your question.

Again, your defensiveness is self defeating.

Luckly your were honest in your answer, explicitly stating the analogous situations and proving you understand the irony I pointed out. Was that so hard?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

hahahahaha

IRONY WINS THE THREAD

 

[Formaldehyde]

Steam can"t be stopped!

Where's Alpstranger? He's going to cry when he see's this.

Wait until he sees that Obama will likely discuss video games today.

 

[Evie]

If there was a proven demonstrable link between video games and shootings, this could, perhaps, be a justifiable measure.

Unlike guns and shootings (where the link with gun is proven by the fact that they're shootings, not mass-knifings or mass-punching in the face or mass-silly-death-trapping), though, there is no such proven link. It's just ugly scapegoating.

Thus, nothing ironic about my position (FOR greater gun restrictions, AGAINST this measure as things stand)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How is asking you to be honest in one instance accusing you of not being so in others? Of course given the rest of your post it's now known you were being disingenuous when you claimed I hadn't answered your question.

Ok, if that's the way you want to play it, fine.

You mentioned the irony with regard to posters in the thread at post #5. Only 4 posters had responded. I asked you to explain the irony using 2 or more of the first 4 posts.

You did not. You went on a tangent. (citation) Hence, you did not answer my question. Nothing disingenuous about stating the obvious. You did not answer my question in any shape or form. You didn't quote any of the first 4 posts. You didn't explain how the content of any of them was ironic.

If we're going to be layman psychologists, let me have a shot at it.

You jumped the gun, got called out on, and now you're trying to save face. Usually the ball-less tactic of being ambiguous when referring to "some posters in this thread" gets by unnoticed when the thread has a couple of pages.

You jumped the gun by doing this on post #5.

It's clear you realise this.

Luckly your were honest in your answer, explicitly stating the analogous situations and proving you understand the irony I pointed out. Was that so hard?

A similarity or an analogous situation is not irony dear Pat. I do realise the similarities, I don't see the irony. Me seeing a similarity proves I understand the irony? That doesn't make any sense.

For that we do indeed go back to the start of all this (post #5), and you having nothing to show for so far.