Boy Beaten to Death by Moron imitating Crap Computer Game

[Phang]

murders commited by manhunt players:total murders
vs
number of manhunt players:total number of people currently alive

i suspect an interesting statistic. surely its good that these murderous kiddies stay inside rather than running around outside where there are more people to kill?

[Dace]

"In the future negros will not be allowed to kill"

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Boogster

If it were a 'copy-cat' murder, is there any reason to suspect that the game can do anyone any good?

I don't see how the two things are related, but for the sake of argument it may well give people good ideas about not leaving hammers laying around, or how to avoid unexpected suffocations.

[Rids]

Thank **** I'm only addicted to Final Fantasy games, I'm having shitloads of difficulty finding my own real-life Aeon that I can set loose on the masses of scum along Oxford Street.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Dace

"In the future negros will not be allowed to kill"

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY NEGRO YOU WHITE HONKEYS!!!!!!

CONTROVERSIAL!!!!!

If that kid didn't die because some psycho, who just happened to play manhunt, decided to see how it looks in real life I'm sure he would have died elsehow. He was destined to die that nanosecond. Not earlier not later.

[Demon Dave]

Originally Posted by Dace

"In the future negros will not be allowed to live"

fixed

[Inferno]

Dont think so.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Inferno

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY NEGRO YOU WHITE HONKEYS!!!!!!

Why?

He was destined to die that nanosecond. Not earlier not later.

I'm sure that defence will work in court!

p.s. I think that's nonsense.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I understand that you knew the killer? - and that you are a psychoanalysist, then?

I just noticed this.

WTF? How is that in any way inferred, implied, intimated, in fact suggested in any way, or even required by, Phang's post? (Reply #41)

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

fixed

I find that offensive.

[Dark-Strider]

The Parents are to blame!

Manhunt is an 18 Rated Game, the boy is only 17.

Games of that substnce should not be given to a mind to imature to work out what is right and wrong.

[NEWSBOT3]

Sicko games scandal

lol

[Dark-Strider]

Im only addicted to the Final Fantasy games.
But I have been trying to get some Guardians to protect me whilst I go on a journey to defeat Sin. And I still dont have an Aeon :/ But ive dressed my dog up as a Chocobo!

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dark-Strider

The Parents are to blame!

Manhunt is an 18 Rated Game, the boy is only 17.

Games of that substnce should not be given to a mind to imature to work out what is right and wrong.

lol

[Lupin]

i doubt that if you are 18, that you are totally mature and know whats the difference between right or wrong.

[xtrasyn]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well it's all very philosophical but you don't need a degree in ethics to have some doubts about the morality of stabbing someone and beating them to death with a claw hammer.

Eh?

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Well it's all very philosophical but you don't need a degree in ethics to have some doubts about the morality of stabbing someone and beating them to death with a claw hammer.

i am sorry, but i cant follow you. you prolly misunderstood me?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Lupin

i am sorry, but i cant follow you. you prolly misunderstood me?

Point: When you are eighteen you might not be totally mature.

Counter-point: Yeah but you'll probably bloody know that hitting someone in the head with a hammer isn't exactly a good idea.

[Sarina_Joy]

I can solve this problem, force parents to pass a basic child rearing program.......if they pass they can breed and if they fail they are forcbily sterilised.

One of the questions wold be "should your child play/watch violent 18 rated titles when they are not yet 18 and seem very immature/ possibly psychopathic" .

[Ninja_spammer]

sorry, the above post should be mine not sarinas.

[Lupin]

yeah and we just need a couple of dudes who control the parents if they are acutally doing what they promised.

plus new workstations would be created.

ace idea!

[Ninja_spammer]

Lupin you are a complete idiot, perhaps your parents should have been sterilised and spared us from your kind of drivel.


THE PROGRAM COULD WORK PEOPLE.

[Lupin]

what you are blaming my english?

[Ninja_spammer]

No I am blaming the fact that you are an Idiot, french speaking or otherwise.

[Lupin]

edit: you prolly misunderstood my answer to sarina, as it should have been meant ironcally and not serious.

[LHC]

Diary entry for 30/7/04
I played Manhunt then I murdered sixteen people today by hitting them repeatedly with a hammer. Tomorrow is my 18th birthday.

Diary entry for 31/7/04
Today I had a meal with the chaps, then I went home to play Manhunt. Jolly good fun, old boy. Tomorrow me and the boys are going to play croquet.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by LHC

Diary entry for 30/7/04
I played Manhunt then I murdered sixteen people today by hitting them repeatedly with a hammer. Tomorrow is my 18th birthday.

Diary entry for 31/7/04
Today I had a meal with the chaps, then I went home to play Manhunt. Jolly good fun, old boy. Tomorrow me and the boys are going to play croquet.

I don't take this seriously as the government hasn't yet given you a licence to argue on the internet.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by sayonara

I just noticed this.

WTF? How is that in any way inferred, implied, intimated, in fact suggested in any way, or even required by, Phang's post? (Reply #41)

Phang described the boy who committed the murder as a 'psycho' - despite not actually knowing this to be true.

There is a post I have just noticed on the first page of the thread by Lupin which has not been argued against, because it is a perfectly reasonable assertion, and which is the point I was trying to make in previous posts.

Originally Posted by Lupin

bottom line: if this kid wouldnt have played manhut he maybe wouldnt have killed the boy, we dont know. and with the weapons he used it looks like he was influenced by this game. as i think you have to fight for every single human life, i definatley go for that this game should be banned or whatever.

[Ninja_spammer]

Just ban everything.

God forbid people be held accountable for their own actions.......no it has to be something OTHER than their own ****ed up nature to blame.

You knee jerkers make me sick.

If I could get away with it I would beat you to death with a blunt object.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

Just ban everything.

God forbid people be held accountable for their own actions.......no it has to be something OTHER than their own ****ed up nature to blame.

You knee jerkers make me sick.


If I could get away with it I would beat you to death with a blunt object.

Call me a prude (or a knee-jerker), but at least I don't wish to beat you to death.

Wait a minute. You've been playing Manhunt haven't you?

[Ninja_spammer]

No its crap........but this publicity will boost its sales no end.

[JonnyBGood]

I think if we're defining someone who murders someone else after playing a computer game as a psycho sayonara is pretty much going to win that argument.

Originally Posted by Lupin

bottom line: if this kid wouldnt have played manhut he maybe wouldnt have killed the boy, we dont know. and with the weapons he used it looks like he was influenced by this game. as i think you have to fight for every single human life, i definatley go for that this game should be banned or whatever.

As well as this the following list of conditions had to be satsified for him to murder the boy with a hammer in the park.

1) the hammer had to be invented
2) parks had to be invented
3) his parents had to be allowed to procreate
4) that specific park had to be built
5) that specific hammer had to be made and purchased
6) his parents or the shop that sold the game had to disobey the 18 rating on the game
7) black people had to be oppressed leading to the current poverty-stricken nature of many black communities
8) opposable digits had to be evolved for the boy to play the game

I blame the above points as well as the computer game.

As well as this I'd like to point out that the mother of the boy who was murdered described the murderer as "inherently evil". If this description is accurate I don't think we should blame the game entirely. If it's not why are we accepting the word of this woman that the game is to blame for the killing? Perhaps her psycho-analytical skills are only used in certain areas? Also it should be noted that the killer lured the boy to the park in order to steal from him. Does the game promote stealing? The killer lied to the boy in order to get him to come? Does the game promote lying?

One does recall the case of the boy who thought he was either spiderman or superman (i forget which) and tried to fly. He plummetted to his death obviously. Should we ban whichever of these movies he was trying to emulate? Perhaps we should ban the associated comic books as well? And any books written which were based on the series. One cannot be too sure when it comes to the sanctity of human life.

Finally there is no direct causal link. I'm sure the kid has seen people use hammers before and I'm sure he has seen violent tv shows. It should be noted that he also brought along a knife, I'm sure many movies have had killers who used hammers as weapons (never mind knives). As lupin states maybe there is a link. Even if there is why should we blame the game? An equally practical solution would be banning parents of children from owning hammers (it's hardly like they use them that often that being forced to borrow them from a state-owned hammer rental store would put them out that much). Maybe children who are "inherently evil" should be watched by personalised video cameras? Maybe we should do something about computer games though. How about their use is restricted by parents so it's more difficult for a child to become obsessed with the game?

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Phang described the boy who committed the murder as a 'psycho' - despite not actually knowing this to be true.

You don't think that stabbing someone in the heart is a particularly psychotic thing to do, regardless of the cause of the behaviour?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think if we're defining someone who murders someone else after playing a computer game as a psycho sayonara is pretty much going to win that argument.

We're not.

As well as this the following list of conditions had to be satsified for him to murder the boy with a hammer in the park.

1) the hammer had to be invented
2) parks had to be invented
3) his parents had to be allowed to procreate
4) that specific park had to be built
5) that specific hammer had to be made and purchased
6) his parents or the shop that sold the game had to disobey the 18 rating on the game
7) black people had to be oppressed leading to the current poverty-stricken nature of many black communities
8) opposable digits had to be evolved for the boy to play the game

I blame the above points as well as the computer game.

None of the above explain or validate the circumstances of the murder in question.

For example, the hammer was not invented as a tool for murder - therefore, blaming the tool (or it's inventer) is unjustified. The invention of the hammer cannot count as a reason for, or explanation of the murder. The fact that a hammer was used, to summarise, is not simply a result of its being invented, but of something else.

6) his parents or the shop that sold the game had to disobey the 18 rating on the game

This does more to justify the withdrawal of the game than prove its innocence.

If a such a substantial risk exists, an age certificate cannot be an effective protective or preventative measure. It is not designed as such.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

We're not.

The whole of the psychiatric profession is on line one for you.

None of the above explain or validate the circumstances of the murder in question.

For example, the hammer was not invented as a tool for murder - therefore, blaming the tool (or it's inventer) is unjustified.

That's ridiculous. Nobody invented the game to inspire people to murder others.

The invention of the hammer cannot count as a reason for, or explanation of the murder. Its use, to summarise, is not simply a result of its being invented, but of something other factor/s.

The fact that he played the computer game can be discounted for exactly the same reason.

This does more to justify the withdrawal of the game than prove its innocence.

If a such a substantial risk exists, an age certificate cannot be an effective protective or preventative measure. It is not designed as such.

So your reason for introducing very harsh rules is that the current rules we have are viewed as too harsh and are not enforced properly? If I give you a piano and tell you not to drop this on yourself from a great height and you then proceed to do so am I to blame for selling you the piano?

[Alex-]

Oh? Doh!

[Lupin]

i think if you play computer games you often activley kill somebody in a virtual world. the danger i see in this is: the inhibition threshold of the imagination of killing someone in real life is dropping, especially if the person is mentaly retarded.*


* i know i cant proof this as it is hypothetical. from what i have heard/read, psychoanlystic studies say that repeaditly playing brutal pc games leads children/teenager to do brutal actions (i hope you get my point here, as it is bad explained of myself).

additionally i dont want say that every mental retarded person who plays pc games is a potential murderer.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Lupin

i think if you play computer games you often activley kill somebody in a virtual world. the danger i see in this is: the inhibition threshold of the imagination of killing someone in real life is dropping, especially if the person is mentaly retarded.*


* i know i cant proof this as it is hypothetical. from what i have heard/read, psychoanlystic studies say that repeaditly playing brutal pc games leads children/teenager to do brutal actions (i hope you get my point here, as it is bad explained of myself).

The point is that many things can lead children to commit brutal actions against others (or themselves). You'd have to establish a large-scale link which showed that a significant number of those playing the game murdered people in xyz way. Otherwise it's just a statistical anomaly which could be due to a huge multitude of factors, one being the fact that the child in question is described as (and i stress this again) inherently evil.

additionally i dont want say that every mental retarded person who plays pc games is a potential murderer.

Heh.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by sayonara

You don't think that stabbing someone in the heart is a particularly psychotic thing to do, regardless of the cause of the behaviour?

Answer or you'll get a chinese burn.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by sayonara

Answer or you'll get a chinese burn.

His reply to my slightly different question

I think if we're defining someone who murders someone else after playing a computer game as a psycho sayonara is pretty much going to win that argument.

would tend to imply he disagrees with you on this one dear.

[sayonara]

The question I'm asking him is not the same as the position you put forward.

[JonnyBGood]

Which is why I said "slightly different" and "imply". Why does nobody ever read my posts?

[sayonara]

I did read it, I just don't think they're 'only slightly' different.

My question doesn't require any causal basis, and I want to know his exact thoughts. I'm not going to read anything into unintentional implications in non-related posts.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by sayonara

My question doesn't require any causal basis, and I want to know his exact thoughts

Why don't you cut open his head with a hammer and look inside then?

[sayonara]

Cool - I didn't think of that.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You'd have to establish a large-scale link which showed that a significant number of those playing the game murdered people in xyz way.

i can't.

Otherwise it's just a statistical anomaly which could be due to a huge multitude of factors, one being the fact that the child in question is described as (and i stress this again) inherently evil.

well i think there are reasons for being "evil". i mean i often would like to physically hurt someone, because of whatever reasons, but i know that this wouldnt be alright.* but playing pc games drops the inhibition threshold etc....


*can you proof that he is inherently evil?

[sayonara]

Yes, by screening him for the evil gene.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Lupin

i can't.

Then why blame this factor over the other possible causes?

well i think there are reasons for being "evil". i mean i often would like to physically hurt someone, because of whatever reasons, but i know that this wouldnt be alright.* but playing pc games drops the inhibition threshold etc....

Accepting that playing computer games drops the "inhibition threshold" why should we outlaw this game specifically? Violence can be seen on television in far more realistic form. It can be read about in far more detail in books. In a very randian (suggested) way we target that which is not important to us as needing legislation.

*can you proof that he is inherently evil?

Of course not. My point lies in the fact that blaming something without real proof is not going to lead to an overall increase in the value of modern society. Many things are not entirely necessary (in a direct sense) for civilisation to continue. However does this set a precedent which, if followed logically, would lead to life not being worth living?

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Then why blame this factor over the other possible causes?

Accepting that playing computer games drops the "inhibition threshold" why should we outlaw this game specifically? Violence can be seen on television in far more realistic form. It can be read about in far more detail in books. In a very randian (suggested) way we target that which is not important to us as needing legislation.

Of course not. My point lies in the fact that blaming something without real proof is not going to lead to an overall increase in the value of modern society.

i think there is a difference between activley killing someone or viewing/imagine how someone is killed. (ie: viewing/reading how someone is killed is much more shocking than killing someone in pc game where it is rewarded as "good".. in my opinion)

i think blaming something is quite important (although it might not be justified because of not 100% proof). i mean do you think it is good to play such sick pc games? (i assume not) while blaming it you try to change something to a better way (you also try to tell other ppl how stupid it is to play such games, opening the mind of others is atleast a way).

Many things are not entirely necessary (in a direct sense) for civilisation to continue. However does this set a precedent which, if followed logically, would lead to life not being worth living?

hmm i am quite not sure what your point is, but i would generally it depends on yourself in which way living is worth or not (i mean there is no real formula).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Lupin

i think there is a difference between activley killing someone or viewing/imagine how someone is killed. (ie: viewing/reading how someone is killed is much more shocking than killing someone in pc game where it is rewarded as "good".. in my opinion)

If someone cannot tell the difference between reality and videogame at the age of 17 something has gone deeply wrong with their education (I use this term in the general way). I'm not too sure as to the exact development of computer games but I've never played where it's difficult to tell the difference between one of the characters and someone who is real.

i think blaming something is quite important (although it might not be justified because of not 100% proof). i mean do you think it is good to play such sick pc games? (i assume not) while blaming it you try to change something to a better way (you also try to tell other ppl how stupid it is to play such games, opening the mind of others is atleast a way).

I think it is good to allow people to choose what they wish to do with their own lives. I disagree with the idea there is a "better" way of conducting your personal life and that we should create laws designed to make people conform to this "better" way of living. This is the concept of liberty.

hmm i am quite not sure what your point is, but i would generally it depends on yourself in which way living is worth or not (i mean there is no real formula).

Indeed. Obviously if we disagree on this very fundamental level the only way one of us is going to see we're wrong (if indeed there are certain ways which are right and certain ways which are wrong) is through
having it demonstrated to us in every day life.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think it is good to allow people to choose what they wish to do with their own lives. I disagree with the idea there is a "better" way of conducting your personal life and that we should create laws designed to make people conform to this "better" way of living. This is the concept of liberty.

good point.

but dont you think there should be something done, if you read about stuff like this?