If you want to truly define the term 'biased,' perhaps you might want to take a look at ITV executive Michael Grade, who has made the ridiculous claim that television is morally superior to videogames. The boss of one of Britain's least entertaining TV stations has stated that because you sit and watch TV, it somehow makes it more moral than interactive entertainment. I don't quite get the logic, since it's akin to someone saying bicycling makes your nipples larger than driving does, because bikes have a handlebar. There's no basis or reasoning for his random conclusion. Also, tea is healthier than coffee, because tea comes from India. You see how easy it is to pull these make-believe claims out of my arse?
Aside from the fact that such deep concepts as morality can't just be so liberally applied to highly varied forms of media in the way that Grade did, I also have to call into question his point that videogames have no narrative. He claims that videogames aren't as 'moral' as TV shows because television can "contextualise video content in a dramatic narrative." Has he not played games since the days of Pac-Man? I've been in the middle of showing the Metal Gear Solid series to my girlfriend, which led to political discussion and emotive reactions to some of the finest storytelling of any entertainment medium available today. I should point out that MGS also has a very strong anti-war and anti-nuke message. So, so immoral, huh? For this fool to decide that videogames are incapable of narrative story when they are, in some instances, a superior format for the delivery of ideas is laughable and a pure betrayal of the ITV boss's complete and utter ignorance.
His claims, a response to EA CEO John Riccitiello's protests against the villification of the games industry, have absolutely no basis in reality and as such, should be taken only as evidence that at least one TV station is run by a man of undistilled idiocy. Claiming that videogames are practically immoral because one can lay back and let television 'come to them' is one of the most illogical and unfathomably asinine arguments I've heard in all my years writing about videogames, and I've heard some classics.
The idea that all television and all videogames can be held to the same moral standard is a joke in and of itself. I can sit and watch pornography as well, does that make it more moral than, say, a game of Dig Dug? Is television more moral than chess since, as per Grade's wild claims, chess has no narrative context? Chess is a game about war, a very trivial game about war, without rhyme or reason. According to Grade's nonsensical theory, television is more wholesome than chess. Of course, that's taking his argument to extremes, but a stupid point deserves a stupid counterpoint, no? As a final note, I'd just like to ask an open question -- since when were unthinking, unsentient, inanimate forms of media capable of having any sense of morality? I thought that was unique to us as people. Obviously I was wrong, if Grade is to be believed.
[Thanks, Donut]
Contest:
8:43 PM on 09.15.2007
| 
I'm so sick of politicians, clergy, & random insane lawyers spewing shit out of their mouths in the "interest of the children". One of my ideas for a blog is the difference between TV and games, and the effect they had on me. But for now all I can say is just leave us gamers alone.
Thats so the grammar Nazi's don't take me away.
This TV man is simply playing on our fears of a-morality, we must get rid of the things that wont help us back.
His idiocy was then bottled, shipped to England, had a nipple attatched, and was then fed to him as a child ensuring he would grow up to make stump-fucking retarded comments like this.
Lazerface84, your knowledge of evolutionary morality is impressive...most impresive, are you familiar with memes? Cultural evolution of the mind rather than biological evolution, basically taking the Darwinian theory and applying it to society and cultures. I mention it because gamers definitely provide a convincing example of meme theory in action.
Evolutionary psychology and sociological evolution are two new (ish) and really damn interesting fields of study. The evolution and existence of hardwired morality as a self defence mechanism has even been proven neurologically through the discovery of mirror neurons.
And yes, a media is by definition a vector for texts, not a text itself. It can in no way, shape or form have an inherent morality, and to say so is moronic. It is also blindingly hypocritical given some of the shows on British TV.
"Embarrassing Illnesses", I'm looking in your direction.
Impressive...most impressive.
He told me things!
Secret things!
Not really secret.
So to hopefully start a flame war...isn't it awesome how the religious always claim to have invented and imposed morality on the wicked man-animals of the world?
Religion as a basis for morality is hilarious anyway. Christianity and its varieties operate on a "do this or you go to Hell" system. Last I checked, being good because you're being blackmailed is NOT morality, it's acting out of fear. They want to go to Heaven so they do nice things, that's not morality either, that's operating with an eye to a reward.
Atheists who do good things tend not to worry that some all-seeing God is judging how nice they are, hence I tend to find their moral compasses far more trustworthy than any so-called 'good Christian'.
That's just my two cents, since it was brought up.
They maintain that claim to prevent losing their power over the people they control and the shit-tonne of money they get from them. Humans, despite the horror the media face-fucks us with, are a co-operative species and the idea the religion is responsible for that is retarded.
Oh, and videogames, cocks, etcetera.
There is an old, oft quoted line,
Without religion you would have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.
It is a little bit of a broad stroke comment but I like it anyway.
And yeah, acting good out of fear is not acting good.
Agnostics, represent!
Actually, to be a smart-ass, it is. Acting good, as opposed to being good. Man, I'm so smug.
To make my point further, many fundamental Christians (and I am just including the fundies here) believe that without religion, atheists are immoral and evil murderers, rapists and pedophiles. If someone believes that the only thing stopping them committing these horrible crimes is a belief in God, well I think that says a lot more about THEM than anybody else.
"Being good", me hung the hell over... smart-arse.
But it is a hilarious assertion of the fundamentalists. The idea that it is only a wrathful god that keeps them from beating and raping their 8 year old.
Or would it.
Discuss.
The cornerstone of philosphy.
But release a piss taking comic about Allah and see what happens, streets full of protesting maniacs. Games and gamers have never hurt anyone, yet they keep on getting blamed or singled out, it must be beacuse games are an easy target.
They must know that they won't cause a nasty backlash from vicious, self righteous gamers, they can stand on their soap box, finger point, look like moral guardians and peace keepers whilst whipping up a state of irrational fear among the masses, all safe in the knowledge that the culture of gaming has never produced a single nasty response. That must be why games are the favourite punch bag for complete cunts.
See, you are what I'm talking about when I say "personal faith", it's for you and that is cool.
Evolutionary Psyc is an emerging field, but if you have access to any Psyc journal databases (through your uni/college etc) start there. Otherwise look up some psyc journal homepages and you might get some freebies.
@zardoz
Man, I want to agree with you but remember the chav (In Australia I call them CHUD) gamers. They are there and they are morons and they can occasionally act like fundies, particularly in defence of the system they have chosen to attatch their self esteem to. But I suppose those are exceptions to the rule of generally passive, erudite gamers.
Lastly, the video game "Holy Land 2: Muslims Go Home" is widely regarded as being responsible for the Crusades.
Gaming beats TV hands down, there is no contest. One medium has only just started, the other has pretty much run it's course and exhausted all creative options. I can't predict what games will be like in 10 years, but i know for sure that tv will be exactly the same.
Question. What is better than TV?
Answer. TV that I can be a part of.
Video games are like TV that shares the experience as opposed to hogging all the fun to itself. But I would like to see more TV based videogames like:
Arrested Development: Rebuild the Bluth Empire. It would be sim city-ish, with occasional Analysis and Therapy.
Oh, and a FUCKING DOCTOR WHO GAME. Something a little like Tresure Hunter Z, lots of innovative Wiimote use, feels Doctor-y.
Your religion is stolen from Zoroastrianism. The Bible was written about fifty years after the fact. It was hand copied and translated for 1400 years before Europe got a printing press (information corrupts after a game of chinese whispers let alone 1400 years). It was deliberately altered by Emporer Constantine to make it a control mechanism.
I could literally, and have for my Religion classes, write a few thousand word essay on the HUGE faults in everything you have posted.
But I'll be flippant instead.
If god is a HIM, that implies gender, which implies HE can reproduce. So what is the super-natural (meaning above the concept of gender) uncreated creator doing with a penis, staring at it whistfully?
Also, how big is it? Are we talking light years? Did he go for the awe inspiring footlong, the 8 incher or a gentlemans six?
You are an idiot slave of a primitive lie. You don't have a brain capable of critical thought, just a big gaping hole where reason might have been.
Pray for my soul.
But in all reality, the statement in question is just another example of universal envy. One of the largest, if not the largest and most desired demographics is young men and teenage boys. Every media outlet out there tries shooting for this and I think it has become more apparent that television people are recognizing that video games are grasping that audience more than they are (let's admit it people) and in jealousy that their precious target is being sucked up they go all politician and bring out the mudslinging to slander their competition and make themselves look good in comparison. Television stations already do it to one another and I don't think it is that far above them to do so to outside forms of media as well. This unsubtantiated claimed is just another solid example of trying to give the other guy a punch in the balls!
This is the same God who also performed the first abortion (the flood) and contradicts himself and makes himself fallible and is a jealous, angry, vengeful, petty psycho. This is the same God who invented humans merely to worship him, who is so egotistical he makes us build massive monumental halls in his honor.
There may be a God, there may not. But if he exists as Christianity portrays him -- a bloodlusting psychopath who was so desperate for bloodshed he killed his own schizophrenic alter ego 'son' ... I think we should all be terrified.
Nicely put.
And it is official, Dtoid needs a philosophy/theology corner.
Now, why do people resort to attack the religions themselves and not just the idiots who claim to be apart of those religions? Seriously, I'm starting to get real sick and tired of seeing the same old shit about "Omgawdz, God must be some vengeful being of wrath who hates people that disagree with themz, lol!". The ridiculous accusations made towards deities like God or Jesus are just getting too cliched and stupid honestly.
Alright, I'm no Christian, but I damn sure know and understand the ways of Christianity and I can tell you Jim that you're just saying the same old crap a HUMAN theorized about Christianity. Like this little line you just wrote.
"I hate the whole "God killed himself so he didn't have to kill us" story in Jesus' 'sacrifice'.--
That's not what it said at all. The story within the bible stated that JESUS, the son of god, sacrificed himself to pay for the sins of man. SINS, not death. Furthermore, if you actually took the time to read the bible you'd also see the mentioning of Jesus going to hell and taking the Keys of death away from Lucifer, thus ending SOME deaths that were forced by Satan, but not at all. So, in the end, God's not saying "you owe mez onez, lol" at all. The story merely stated that he/she/it washed away the sins of mankind so that you could be given a choice to go to heaven instead of instantly being thrown in hell because of those Keys Lucifer had (or in some cases, innocent beings would be placed inside a "purgatory". Expanding on that in further scriptures, it also mentioned Jesus taking thousands if not millions of people who had died and went to purgatory and took them with him to Heaven--probably some from hell too who were wrongly placed there).
So, how about I explain choice then?
The option of free will is the ability given to our bodies from our soul. With a soul humans have the chance to DECIDE whether or not they want to believe in God or turn away from him. In Christianity's eyes, this also makes it why humans are so different from animals. With a soul, humans do not rely on instincts to survive and simply reproduce like a rabbit. But back to the point, the fact that you HAVE a choice to either believe and God and be rewarded by going to heaven or shy away from him and be casted into hell. THAT in itself is merciful because if God was a wrathful God then you WOULDN'T have a choice and we'd all be thrown in hell.
Anyway, I just felt the need to explain all of that since it just gets annoying when people bash something they don't know or understand and just go along with other people's opinions instead of forming their own. Oh, and trust me, if they were your opinions you'd of actually taken the time to read the bible and studied it. Other then that my explanation by no mean means you have to believe in God or any other religion ^_^. As for the subject on hand, it was stated both TV and video games are MEDIUMS for entertainment, not vessels for morality, lol.
"Last I checked, being good because you're being blackmailed is NOT morality, it's acting out of fear."
Thanks for that, i've been having a really hard time finding those words for myself.
If you have studied the Bible then you must know that it is ridiculous to think of it as a source of information. The first thing a high school history class teaches is source analysis, and the Bible is one of the most innacurate sources of info ever belted out.
The religions are attackable, not only as they are responsible for the morons who follow them, but because of the control structure they maintain. Take catholicism and the third world, every time a pope says that catholics shouldn't use condoms or a bishop says that they don't prevent aids, people die. That is the faith, they say it comes from god and it is attackable.
Nobody here has said anything approximating "god sux lolz" and you have only addressed a minor part of the argument about moral action through fear. The basis is still threat, purgatory or hell or Jesus freeing a few, the threat is what the faith is based on and people acting under threat are not choosing.
Lastly, reading the Bible is a fucking chore, don't bitch about people not taking the time to read the worlds most unreadable book (short of Dianetics).
To start another discussion, free will does not exist.
But what I really find disgusting is all that "Jackass & Co." stuff on MTV. I don't call for removing these shows - NO WAY - who wants to see that stuff has a right to it. But calling TV morally superior with these kinds of "entertainment" is not only uncalled for but plain and simple DUMB.
*Howard Stern.
Although the argument that media cannot portray morality is equally vapid.
"The ridiculous accusations made towards deities like God or Jesus are just getting too cliched and stupid honestly."
Do yourself a favor, as I have, and read the Old Testament. No accusations need to be made since the book does a good job if vilifying God. God was a psychopath, plain and simple. He also is fallible, since God himself admits more than once that he fucked up and made a mistake. If you read the Bible, you'll know how brutal God is, and also how much that damn book contradicts itself.
"That's not what it said at all. The story within the bible stated that JESUS, the son of god, sacrificed himself to pay for the sins of man. SINS, not death. Furthermore, if you actually took the time to read the bible you'd also see the mentioning of Jesus going to hell and taking the Keys of death away from Lucifer, thus ending SOME deaths that were forced by Satan, but not at all. So, in the end, God's not saying "you owe mez onez, lol" at all. The story merely stated that he/she/it washed away the sins of mankind so that you could be given a choice to go to heaven instead of instantly being thrown in hell because of those Keys Lucifer had (or in some cases, innocent beings would be placed inside a "purgatory". Expanding on that in further scriptures, it also mentioned Jesus taking thousands if not millions of people who had died and went to purgatory and took them with him to Heaven--probably some from hell too who were wrongly placed there)."
If God was all-powerful, he could just magic those keys away. Let's not conveniently claim God's hands were tied here, just because it helps that particular part of the story.
God is supposed to be untouchable. If he wanted to wipe away our sins, he could have done it with a snap of his fingers. But no, there had to be blood somehow, didn't there?
"But back to the point, the fact that you HAVE a choice to either believe and God and be rewarded by going to heaven or shy away from him and be casted into hell. THAT in itself is merciful because if God was a wrathful God then you WOULDN'T have a choice and we'd all be thrown in hell."
No, that's not mercy, that's trickery. To give a naturally cynical and untrusting species free will to believe in you, then disappear for all eternity and expect you all to still believe, is cruel and setting your 'children' up for disaster.
Here's an example -- if someone said they had something absolutely fantastic for you, that you won't be able to see for ten years, but in that ten years you have to give him ten bucks a day, would you do it? That's pretty much what religion is asking of you -- to hold faith that something you've never seen and never will see is coming your way provided you believe in something you've never seen, something that typically should be beyond humanity's capabilities, though far too many are managing it.
Second example -- I could go into any church today, claim I am the second coming of Jesus, and either be thrown out or sent to a mental institution. Now, we're supposed to believe that Jesus WILL have a second coming, but what priest or vicar in their right mind would believe anyone walking into their church to claim it? Not many.
Do you see my point? Even the religious will be cynical about their own teachings. If you're not ready to entertain the idea that anybody who claims they're Jesus might be telling the truth, then you can't say you have faith.
So I ask ... if I said I'm Jesus right now, would you believe me?
Some of the smarter ones latched onto that and used it to exert control. The revisions that the Bible has gone through shows that, as various entities have skewed the faith with their own personal agendas. Organized religion is a power game, little more. An exertion of power founded on humanity's fear of death.
The very fact that Christians call themselves 'sheep' has to have been a joke inserted somewhere along the way. It's such a great irony that apparently nobody of faith has noticed yet.