.....so let me get this right, he "trained people to actually kill" as he himself put it, yet he's apposed to violent in video games......
The head of the Australian Christian Lobby discusses training to kill, why they oppose an R18+ rating for games, and why the public consultation is "nonsense."
Video game censorship and the possible introduction of a restricted R18+ rating for games in Australia continue to be two fervently argued subjects. With the government-issued public consultation process scheduled to close at the end of this month, we spoke with groups on both sides of the fence to hear their opinions on why they believe the introduction or blocking of a mature rating for games is so important. Last week we spoke with Electronic Frontiers Australia chair Nicolas Suzor. Now we examine the other side of the coin by chatting with Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby--a group whose vision is (according to its Web site) to have "Christian principles and ethics accepted and influencing the way we are governed, do business and relate to each other as a community." The ACL is a vocal supporter of the national Internet filter and opposes same-sex marriage.
GameSpot AU: Do you support the introduction of a restricted R18+ category for video games in Australia?
Jim Wallace: Obviously we donít, and the reason for it is I really canít see how anyone would want to watch and participate in more violent, more sexually explicit, and often deviant games; but Iím particularly concerned about the more violent. Iíll just give you my own personal background to that. I commanded the SAS regiment, and in that role I had to train people for counterterrorist operations. In doing that, and in fact with any military training, you have to break a very natural reluctance--and from a Christian point of view I think itís a good natural reluctance--by anybody to kill someone else. In order to break that reluctance the military generally--but particularly the SAS because of the time-critical nature of the actions theyíre involved with--means you have to break that by two things: the first is simulation and you make that as real as possible. The second is repetition. I think youíd agree that for SAS personnel involved in counterterrorism to do that is a necessary evil so to speak. But for us to be condoning games that did that for the general person out in the community, particularly when weíre going to get some of those people who have a predisposition to violence, simply doesnít make sense, and itís not in the individualís interest, and itís not in the communityís interest.
GS AU: Are games being appropriately and consistently classified under the current rating system?
JW: There are always inconsistencies in classification and this occurs right across the regime of classification, whether youíre talking about certainly DVDs and films, or I assume, and I know, games. But that doesnít mean that we throw out the classification system. The classification system is there for good reason and as far as Iím concerned, my experience, as I said in training people to actually kill, says to me that in the area of games if weíre getting more simulation, then thereís more reason than ever before to make sure that our classification system works. Of course we have the ability to challenge classifications that we believe are inconsistent or wrong, thatís all part of the system; you expect it to be part of the system. No system is perfect, but that doesnít mean you throw out the whole system, thatís nonsense.
GS AU: Does the current classification system adequately inform consumers about the content found in games?
JW: I think that the classification system, and Iím not overly familiar with it in the case of games and how itís actually communicated, but certainly the classification system and the standards used are pretty well communicated through warnings on TV and what have you, so I donít personally believe thereís a problem with that.
GS AU: Who should choose which content Australian adults view?
JW: We have a system which obviously passes that responsibility to the Office of Film and Literature Classification [Editor's Note: The OFLC is now called the Australian Classification Board], and itís an organisation set up at arms length from the government and has people who are experienced in this. It has both a classification board and a review board, and itís quite an appropriate body to do the job.
GS AU: Do you agree with the current unanimous decision required by all State and Federal Attorneys-General to amend the National Classification Scheme?
JW: Yes I do because itís a fact of federation that there were particular responsibilities that were resident in the states--censorship was one of them and clearly the states have reserved powers in that regard. Theyíve reserved the right to take back that power and by agreement have to come to a unanimous decision before they agree to a change, remembering that change in any state is clearly going to affect the other states. Itís a fact of our federal system and itís quite a logical one.
GS AU: What do you think Australia's pro and anti R18+ support results will look like once the national public consultation closes?
JW: I think the entire consultation process is nonsense. Itís being pushed really by the Victorian Attorney-General who realised he was going to be defeated in the [Standing Committee of Attorneys-General] meeting and what do you anticipate? The only people who are going to be into this are the games people, so I donít think the outcome of this particular study will represent anyoneís view but the games industry. I canít see a whole lot of other people becoming motivated on it because they wonít realise itís on, because itís the gamers and games industry sending in all the responses. I donít really think itíll serve much purpose at all. I think that as the South Australian Attorney-General has pointed out, without some sort of imagery that demonstrates what weíre actually talking about, most people wonít realise the sort of danger until itís on top of them. Who for goodness' sake if youíre interested in gaming would be interested in themes that have the massacre of civilians, torture, extreme violence, bloodlust--gratuitous bloodlust. Itís quite ridiculous and itís not something thatís to benefit society or in many cases will benefit the individuals playing it.
GS AU: Why do you believe gamers are the majority of the respondents in the public consultation?
JW: I donít think it is out there, and as the South Australian Attorney-General has said, I donít think people will generally be aware of the types of games because most people wouldnít seek to play them. I donít think the fact that some people seek to play them and theyíre the ones who are going to respond to this particularly enquiry should mean that we take any undue notice of the result.
GS AU: Is there disparity with how content is rated when games are given an 18 rating in other countries and an MA15+ locally?
JW: Youíre making a presumption that the whole system is broken because the occasional game drops through and is classified as MA15 when it should have been R18+. Iím saying that any system will not work perfectly. We have a repechage system available where you can challenge a classification and thatís how it should work. You donít throw out the whole classification system simply because some items or some games get through when they shouldnít have. I can understand the proponents of R18+ for games using this sort of argument, but itís a clear nonsense. Itís self-evident nonsense, quite a self-serving argument.
GS AU: What is the Australian Christian Lobbyís position on R18+ for film and DVD?
JW: We believe that there has been creep through these various classification levels all the time. Weíre now seeing things in R18+ that are not supposed to be there by the letter of the regulations, but increasingly creep into them. There is a need to monitor and police these things and perhaps an increasing need.
GS AU: Why is the ACL supportive of an R18+ for film when you donít believe the classification is filtering content appropriately?
JW: Youíve got a completely different situation with games because games are interactive--increasingly interactive--and have high levels of simulation. Itís simulation and interactivity and repetition all of which are ascribed to games that make them a particularly dangerous form of medium to be flooding the community with. Weíre not talking about movies that are a one-off viewing or you might see a piece of violence in a 90-minute session. Weíre talking about something that is repetitive, highly simulated and highly interactive. All simulation and interactivity will become increasingly real, and you and I both know that--itís the object of games manufacturers. As far as increasing reality in games that donít have these violent and unnecessary sexually violent games, then I would salute that. But I donít salute that when it comes to violence and indeed sexual violence.
GS AU: Jim Wallace, thanks for your time.
Stay tuned for information on other groups that support or block an R18+ rating for games in Australia. In the meantime, check out GameSpot AU's Aussie Games Classification FAQ feature.
Damnclown and falcon, they are the best examples of how this Jim Wallace and Atkinson are just total contradicting bigots. I would love to hear them explain themselves about that!
"You don?t throw out the whole classification system simply because some items or some games get through when they shouldn?t have." The proposal is to add an R18 rating. Not to 'throw out the whole classification system'. "I can understand the proponents of R18+ for games using this sort of argument, but it?s a clear nonsense. It?s self-evident nonsense, quite a self-serving argument." The irony is palpable. "I don?t think it is out there, and as the South Australian Attorney-General has said, I don?t think people will generally be aware of the types of games because most people wouldn?t seek to play them. I don?t think the fact that some people seek to play them and they?re the ones who are going to respond to this particularly enquiry should mean that we take any undue notice of the result." What a self-serving argument, to use your words Jim Wallace. The whole exercise of the discussion paper is useless while Atkinson remains in government. If the results of the submissions showed that people were against an R18 rating then Atkinson and the ACL would be shouting it from the rooftoops. Instead since the results are showing support for an R18 rating they belittle the results of the submissions, "well of course its popular, gamers are the only ones making submissions". The discussion paper is a farce when these individuals already have a predetermined decision about what the results of the discussion paper will mean.
I am a christian and I voted for an R18+ policy. If the Bible was made into a game it would be rated R18+. It has Sex, violence, rape, torture, genocide, prostitutes being stoned to death and more. Even with an R18+ rating it wouldn't make it past the censors. I'd like to hear what he would have to say about that. I have read the Bible and no where does it say thou shalt not play games. As a matter of fact it's full of Holy Wars by the command of God. Also the Bible says not to touch pig skin, shall we give up football also?
No one cares what this preachy christian douche bag thinks...video games don't cause violence. First it was music, then it was movies, and now it's video games. You know who really is to blame? Parents. Take some damn responsibility for your children. GTA didn't turn little Timmy into a murderer, he was already a psycho, no thanks to you. He would have done it with or without violent video games.
this guy speaks as though he believes simulated violence is in any way comparable to the real thing. I've played all the GTA's and tons of horror titles out there but that didn't make being witness to a violent car accident any less shocking. These people need to pull their heads out of their asses and quit the double standards.
Woooo yes, let us all do what Captain Christianity wishes to do what with the bible being filled with stories of a man being whipped, crucified, stabbed then sealed behind a giant boulder, if anything they should ban the Bible because it contains more violence than anything we'll ever play on any gaming system in this generation. (Or at least demand that it has an R18+ sticker slapped on it with warnings including sexual nature, murder, a "Special" place for unbaptised babies according to the Christians, Hell for eating meat on Friday and also for not keeping holy the sabbath.) What was that saying again... "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" Seeing as the Bible has more messed up stuff in it than Fallout 3 and it's Morph... "Stimpak" or Left4Dead 2 and it's Infected who magically vanish after you kill them or flail about like beat retards if set on fire cause we don't actually get to see the flames on those poor undead shlubs I really don't think Christianity Spokes-Person Jim Wallace really should have any say on what us "Heathens" choose to do with our lives or the content we view. P.S. For those who are offended by me refering to them as Heathens, I apologize... also for the retard comment, I feel that point needed to be made though seeing as I wasted so much ammunition trying to over-kill what was already dead because I couldn't tell if they were on fire in the first act of Left4Dead 2.
What the hell is GamespotAU doing talking to the Christian Right? They already have an unprecedented amount of access to our pathetically weak politicians without introducing there puerile and anachronistic views within the pages of a games site. Grow up!!!
im not going to even both typing what i think of this stupid debate. but i will say, that if people like this dude had their way, we'd all be playing Pong, because even Super Monkey Ball displays animal cruelty
@johnnyauau No offense man, but just because the news has progressed (which the updated news only hit last night), doesn't mean people can't continue their discussion within the same context. I even linked the news update to nublet, but it doesn't prove my argument any more than before as the issue is still present. All the new article shows is that things are looking positive for gamers possibly getting what they want. But thanks anyway.
Wow! This discussion has gone to a whole new meaning! Nothing personal but check the news page for further results of the R18+ game issue.
@dariuskx Thanks for the supportive comment. I've never understood the whole "all or nothing", "nothing or all" mentality many seem to commit themselves to. I prefer to have a more objective, fair outlook. I'm not from nor in australia, but I know how I would feel if the country I live in had a similar stance on games. As I had shown in the comment I put in my blog from a same topic, different game, I had listed the ESRB and PEGI sites that are used in the states and europe who's entire purpose is to give a comprehensive listing of all games ratings with descriptions detailing the reasons for the said games being assigned a particular rating. If government is as worried as it seems with adding an 18+ plus rating, then they should offer a compromise. In the compromise, add the 18+ rating to the system, but add a requirement that all games retailers set up a minimum of 1 terminal PC permanently connected to the games ratings site that all customers can make use of and require retailer staff to encourage customers (especially parents) to make use of it. This would give all customers access in a pinch to all information relating to a games ratings and reasons for said rating. Block kids from buying any games that are rated older than their age without a parent/guardian present to give consent (only after using the games rating site). As result, both sides get what they ultimately want. Retailers and gamers get their 18+ rating. Parents get the information they need to make more responsible game choices for their kids. And the government gets better control of game ratings with reduced manipulation with a better, more effect medium for informing parents of games rating and content. It's a win/win/win scenario. I think this would be a fair, reasonable compromise and i think most gamers would agree with it as a reasonable compromise. What do you think?
@nublet1984 Well as I am nowhere in range to smell your skidmarks, the only one who will be offended is you, so enjoy smelling your own $hit buddy ;)
@ bignick217 I like your point of view right there Nick! Alot of people have been so caught up in the emotions and anger at the OFLC, and their apparent rights being hindered, which they have the right to, that they havn't realised that they too have been reacting to an extreme. Sure our governing bodies may be over-reacting to 'violent' games out of fear of them reaching the wrong hands, and they havn't considered the freedom of adult Australians to make their own choices, but we've over-reacted to our freedom being withheld from us that we havn't considered the other-side of the coin. I like what you said at the end of your post. That while we consider and extend our rating system to make a fairer one, and one that allows adults to view or interact with content as they please, we need to better educate parents at the same time... If we as gamers/vendors showed more interest in protecting kids and families from content that people deem "child-inappropriate", perhaps the 'conservatives' would be less reluctant to extend the rating system.
@dariuskx A more realistic rating system is needed. Such as adding the 18+ which I think is a good idea. But with or without the 18+ rating, parents need to be better informed of their responsibility to utilize the rating system and what resources they have at their disposal for making better informed, more responsible decisions when purchasing said games for their kids. Now personally, there are a lot of games that I don't particularly like due to their content. I'm not a big fan of FPS games. I tend to prefer strategy RTS, RTT and role playing games RPG. There are several FPS that I have felt were overly violent and as a result, I stopped playing them. That was my choice as an adult. But at the same time, just because the content within the said game didn't appeal to me, doesn't mean I feel I should have the right to tell other adults that they can't play it. That's not my place. That's not anybody's place. However, if it was a kid. Then yeah, I would tell them they can't play it (if it is a game within my direct control). So basically, it's not just the rating system that needs adjustment, but a big part of it as well is that there needs to be better parental education informing parents as to the function, purpose and resources of the rating system that parents should be encouraged to make use of.
@dariuskx I agree with your sentiment and this is the forum for this kind of discussion. I've never said that these games shouldn't be kept away from kids. In fact, I'm all for censoring kids from certain types of content. The main argument here is that adults should have the right to view the content they so choose to expose themselves to. As they would be adults, they should be of the mature position to view the content responsibly and hold that content within the appropriate context. The problem is that you get a lot of irresponsible adults that don't check the ratings of games prior to purchasing games for their kids. Which I see as a big problem. But to try to resolve the problem, the aussie government has tried to nip it all in the butt by banning everything, for everybody, regardless of age if a game exceeds a certain level of content. Which I see as a step too far and would only cause more problems than it solves. If people really want a said game, they're going to get it anyway (importing, pirating etc.). Plus there's room for classification manipulation, such as games that should be rated 18+ but get 15+ instead because they're blockbusters or politics etc. Which only serves as a detriment to the purpose the rating system is meant to provide.
@nublet1984 LMAO... Me? Mad? Nah.. I could care less. Your not worth the effort needed to get angry. So if you don't own that game, then why have it in your profile? Never mind, I don't care. It mearly proves my previous question that you are not a gamer and your only purpose here is waste your time and ours with rediculous nonsense, because you have nothing better to do with your sad life but to come here and intentionally pi$$ people off... "Personal Attacks" There was only 1 personal attack and the was the "Survey Says!... You Suck!" remark... And that was more for humor and irony than anything else, because you sent me to this article that doesn't prove your point any more than the previous article did. So I linked you to an article that supports my position, but doesn't "prove" my point my any more than yours did, but take it how you want. I'll leave you to your uselessness. "Have a nice day" (opposite definition)
@bignick217 Wow your skills of comprehension are about as good as your skill at arguing. I can just see you raging there behind your keyboard; resorting to personall attacks as you do. It'll be a big delete for your comments in my inbox now bignick217. Btw I don't own and have never played that game :D Adios Idiota
@nublet1984 http://au.gamespot.com/news/6249991.html?tag=recent_news;title;1 Survey Says!..... You Suck!
@nublet1984 With all your whining, b*tching and complaining about videogames. Are you even a gamer? If you have such a distaste for the content in video games, why do you even bother with them. Why do you waste your time on video games sites such as this. I mean seriously... What's the point? Nobodies forcing you to view the content that offends you. Why do you bother? Or are you just some random dumb*ss trying to spread your propaganda in this community foolishly hoping for acceptance? Or do you work for the above organisation looking for a medium to spread your redorict? Funny how your profile only has one game on it (Allied Ace Pilots... Shooting people out of the skies? or shooting computer generated "images" of planes). Even funnier how the only discussions I ever see you in are in these types of discussions where all you ever seem to accomplish is your uncanny knack for pi$$ing people off. Food for thought. If you haven't yet figured out my position on game violence and kids read my small blog on the subject. My position doesn't get much clearer than that. Please don't waste my time again. And please, for the sake of everybody else's blood pressure, leave these good people alone and find a better, more constructive use for your time.
@nublet1984 Wow nublet1984... I have to say I'm simply amazed you would ask me to look at this article when you know there's no way, nowhere within even an earshot of hell would I ever support the garbage you spout. And this guy above's argument is just as shallow, closed minded and uninformed as you. There is a very big difference to being trained to kill in a realistic environment that you know is a living breathing human being and virtual environment where you know for a fact that what your shooting at is nothing more than a computer generated "image". I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but you lost all earnable respect and consideration from me during our last argument on the similar topic. I'm not even going to bother wasting my time reiterating the flaws and lack of logic in your arguments again. But I do have a couple questions for you. Contiued above:
Has Michael Atkinson and Jim Wallace forgotten that violence was around long before video games were around. And i dont know about anyone else but i dont think well for me anyway its about children having access to violent games. I am more annoyed that people are still trying to tell me an adult what i can and cannot do. I thought the whole point of becoming an adult was you get the right to say play R rated games if i so wish
I think the biggest issue is the theory of interactivity. Acting out violence in a fictional videogame manner is obviously more satisfying (in the sense of course) than watching jackie chan or bruce willis do it on screen. I absoloutely disagree that it will make us want to go out and do it in real life. It's a total nonsensical argument to believe that this is a good reason to stop R18+ from coming in becuase it is NOT. There is no evidence that this makes kids go crazy and perfrom the act in real life. There is a history of out of control shooting and serial murder violence which exists way before computers existed. These so called conservatives only use this insanity excuse to fuel their own moral choices upon everyone else. And of course, to help their buddies win votes in parliament. R18 is a tremendously successful guideline. It MUST be implemented because it is what makes everyone "aware and fair".
@R_evolution_Jay it's you who doesn't fully grasp the subject. Furthermore I fart in your general direction haha :D
...continued It's easy for us to say that we grew up 'normal' because we didn't have games that shared the realism of GTA IV or MW2... Again, I'm all for the progression of this rating system! But if gaming developers are going to be 'educating' the next few generations, perhaps parents should be informed of what some of these games REALLY involve, and the possible effects they have on kids (and they know what those effects are, game developers spend millions researching on how to make games as addictive as possible) And perhaps game developers could take some of the responsibility of that? Perhaps this is the wrong forum to be raising these issues, I'm not sure how many of you guys really care about this stuff... but i'll say it anyway, just in case one day you're in a situation where you NEED to think about it!
@Draconous79 @raghraghragh Hey, you guys may be right! And I sure hope so, because the alternative is far worse than anyone losing a forum debate! I love video games! The more violent the more fun most of the time, heck when I play Empire: Total War I zoom all the way in just so I can get a good look at those little buggers slaughter each other. My issue deffinately isn't the proposed classification system, I'm all for a R18+ system. All the reasons for having one are there (and lets not go through them all again). I work with highschool aged kids alot, and I speak in public high-schools from time to time on various issues... and my main concern is with how kids today are being raised! I said it before, kids today are really messed up, their parents even more so! And yeah, I agree with Draconous79 there are deffinately more issues at play than what they watch and listen to, but with a majority of kids between the ages of 8-15 spending at least 4hours a day in front of a PC or TV, you must admit that it's going to be HUGE contributor! 3/5 familes don't even share an evening meal together anymore (their kids are eating in front of a tv or computer).
@dariuskx You are absolutely right about Australian parenting... but don't you think that should be the main issue involved and not a holding back a fair rating system... and as for the connection from video games and shootings... there has never been a scientific connection between shootings and video games. Its all to easy to blame video games or music for the sickness of society just because people don't understand them or like them themselves (as a gamer and a metal head i cop this all the time). We should be trying to fix what makes these kids so pissed off (like bullying) that they feel compelled to go on a rampage instead of going after the easy scapegoat... that would improve society a lot more than banning a few games!
Uh oh. Here we go. Atkinson pulls out one of his closest mates - the Christian Military!! Where the hell did this jack in the box pop up from?? .
@dariuskx While they may be trying to keep violent video games out of the hands of children, why do they think they have the right to tell me (or anybody else over the age of 18) what they can and cannot view? I believe your statement about video games being related to school shootings is also ridiculous - why is it that all other countries, including Australia, have access to pretty much all the same games that Americans do, yet no other countries have the same problem with guns? Hmm, here's a thought: perhaps it has something to do with America's gun culture and the millions of guns they own, the larger divide between rich and poor as well as their lower educational standards! :shock: You honestly believe we should censor what adults can and cannot see JUST IN CASE some nutjob might be influenced by one of the said games? Give me a break. Violence existed before video games and violence will exist whether we censor video games or any other form of entertainment, simply because morons exist who like to kill people.
I understand that many people out there have an agenda against Christians, mostly because they feel that Christians have an agenda against them. I suppose that's fair. But making the mistake of dismissing good values: values that aim to keep violent and at times pornographic simulations out of kids hands, just because they sound 'Christian' seems like a mistake and as much of a knee jerk reaction as we claim that the Christian lobbyists are making. At the end of the day, when a we have an epidemic like the one in America where kids no longer get their 'kick' out of videos games and start walking into schools armed with guns shooting up their classmates... it'll be too late to say I told you so. You might think: "that'll never happen"... "it's not video games fault that kids shoot each other"... blah blah blah... maybe you're right, and maybe I'm wrong... you wanna find out?
I've played violent games all my life - Doom and Wolfenstein when I was 5, approx, all the way to Modern Warfare 2 at the age of 20. However, I do not believe in violence, and am very reluctant to harm another person. By this man's logic, I should be a sociopath with no qualms about hurting others. Of course, I should have realised he was nuts just from his introduction as being part of a party that opposes same-sex marriage and wants to censor the internet.
i believe this man nor the party he is representing (the Aus christian lobby) has no business weighing into the argument, i have heard this man speak publicly and i managed to ask him about this subject and the great firewall of australia and he said and i quote "i never really used a computer so i have no knowledge of this stuff" so yeah massive waste of breath
R_evolution_Jay you've hit the nail on the head. Hopefully it would still mean that those games that are currently band would still be band, and the MA15+ games move up to R18+.
A question they should have asked: "So, do you think children aged 15 (and we all know younger minds are more easily influenced than older minds) are not being mentally harmed by these R rated games squeezed into the MA rating in Australia? which would otherwise be illegal for them to have access to with the R rating in Aus." But nooooooooo, leave out the controversial questions that they would have no sidestep to...
@nublet1984, You obviously don't fully grasp this subject at all if that's what you really think, are you related to Atkinson?...
He wants christians to influence the gaming market? Come on, government is supposed to be free of the influences of religion. If they get a say in anything, it'll just get out of hand. I mean come on, religion is based on absolutely no evidence what so ever. It's all faith based. If you introduce a government policy you want research done to see if it works, not just claim that due to faith, R18 shouldn't be available for games. Atheism FOR THE WIN!
So many gamers seem to want really sick games to be released freely so they can get their kicks; without thought of the societal effect. I think Jim speaks with great authority on this subject.
Although I agree that a R18+ rating for games will bring a more 'conservative' classification system, I also worry that many Australian parents just won't follow it. Having worked in one of the larger game retail stores, I can say from experience that many parents don't care what they're kids play, as long as it means they're occupied for 4-6+ hours a day! I've seen way too many parents come in and buy GTA IV for their 10 year old son. When I advise them against it, and inform them of the content, they either shrug, get battered by their brat into buying it anyway, or even go crazy at the notion of me 'telling them how to bring up their kid'. Sure R18+ may be a good thing... but it's not the classification system I'm worried about, it's Australian parenting!
Forget it guys, dont even bother.....If you try to reason with ignorance, it will only end up wasting your own time.......Im off to play Mass Effect 2.....
@ Cobretti1818 He may not be 'related' to gaming but thats just like the public and I HOPE they get the final word
@Blown454 The Spanish inquisition removed the Islamic moors by violence. There removing them because there 'non-believers'. Oh he is comparing he's trying to make a point not just some random comparison
@jamesh42 It's because playing a game or doing something in a game is different to watching a movie. YOUR doing it not watching it. It's called simulation.
yup all that games have taught me is how to kill someone! you press the R1 button right then X and O oh don't forget to reload by pressing Square.
I reckon Jimmo would be alright to bust a few caps. I'd like to hear his war stories. He does have some valid points too.
It's too bad he side stepped the R18+ film question. Assuming the classifications are being applied correctly, why are high impact films okay but high impact games not?
yeah christianity can really condone violence just look at the spanish inquisition. Once again a religion trying to force its misguided views on the public. Oh and is he really comparing being in the military to playing a game, I'm sorry but if your that retarded you cant tell the difference between reality and a game then you should be locked up.