In the news

[das_nut]

No it's not. They're an animal rights organization, not a human rights organization. Are they supposed to take up every cause?

Humans aren't animals?

Anyways, I keed.

The problem with PETA going after this now is that video games have recently been in the news over their links to school shootings. In the mentality of the public, I bet that many people consider PETA's concerns are rather trivial when compared to the deaths of children.

 

[ledboots]

Early (except to Freesia) St. Patrick's Day interesting gold facts.

 

[Ansciess]

Humans aren't animals?

Anyways, I keed.

The problem with PETA going after this now is that video games have recently been in the news over their links to school shootings. In the mentality of the public, I bet that many people consider PETA's concerns are rather trivial when compared to the deaths of children.

"Animal rights" is taken to refer to non-humans.

Many people consider all of PETA's concerns (or that of any animal rights group) trivial, as long as there is a single human anywhere in the world suffering. That's not PETA's (or any animal right's group's) problem. I've heard things like, "Why should I care about chickens when there are starving kids in the world?" many times. If someone can't extend their compassion to those who are even more helpless than humans, that doesn't mean those who can should shut up about it.

 

[das_nut]

Many people consider all of PETA's concerns (or that of any animal rights group) trivial, as long as there is a single human anywhere in the world suffering. That's not PETA's (or any animal right's group's) problem. I've heard things like, "Why should I care about chickens when there are starving kids in the world?" many times. If someone can't extend their compassion to those who are even more helpless than humans, that doesn't mean those who can should shut up about it.

I'm just trying to say that PETA... Well, I'd say that PETA is approaching the whole problem the wrong way, but it depends on what PETA's goals are - in many ways, PETA seems to believe that all publicity is good publicity, and seems to design their actions in order to be criticized or mocked by others - relying on their actions being picked up as a news story - see Holocaust on your plate, or sea kittens, or this.

One could argue how effective this is - sure, it gets their name out, but it may not be the publicity that endears people (except the true faithful) to them.

The counterargument is that PETA is crazy like a fox - it wants to come off as a loud, boisterous fringe group to give it leverage in private negotiations with other companies.

 

[Ansciess]

I'm just trying to say that PETA... Well, I'd say that PETA is approaching the whole problem the wrong way, but it depends on what PETA's goals are - in many ways, PETA seems to believe that all publicity is good publicity, and seems to design their actions in order to be criticized or mocked by others

I don't see this statement of PETA's as being anything like other controversial things they might have done. This is not engineered to get a rise out of people so they'll get the issue in the news. They're just saying that they don't approve of a video game that glorifies hunting and killing whales. It's their job to point that kind of thing out. If they're getting criticized about this as being some kind of controversial or distasteful or silly move, then it seems to me that they really have their job cut out for them to make people care about animals being hurt.

 

[das_nut]

They're just saying that they don't approve of a video game that glorifies hunting and killing whales. It's their job to point that kind of thing out.

Do you believe that? There's lots of games where animals are hurt and/or killed, or where animal products are used.

Why did PETA select this game? And why start now?

I think it's all about the controversy and getting free publicity. After all, it's very unlikely that anyone who plays the game will take up 18th century whaling. But it does get them in the news.

Unlike, say, protesting against Big Game Hunter 4, which everyone expects.

 

[Alice-Bee]

I agree with PETA on this. I don't think games about hunting and killing whales are ethically acceptable, and they're fine to speak out about it.

There are plenty of games that actually focus on hunting. Why pick AC that features this for all of 5 minutes. AC is not a hunting game.
In the newest Tomb Raider you are required to kill a deer to survive the opening sequence, didnt see that in PeTAs report on gaming, But its not all of the game...Bottom line is games do not influence (99.99999%) of people that play them. I play Mario but have no desire to jump on mushrooms or turtles so I doubt any of the AC players finish the game and think 'I support whaling now it looks pretty awesome'.

 

[Spang]

Ever since I first played Pac-Man I've had an insatiable hunger for ghosts.

 

[ledboots]

Are ghosts vegan? I wou ld jump on mushrooms but not turtles.

This opinion piece is about how we don't have privacy anymore r/t technology.

http://sprint.mw.cnn.com/primary/wk.../03/16/opinion/schneier-internet-surveillance

 

[Spang]

Are ghosts vegan?

Depends on the fabric of the sheets.

 

[Ansciess]

Do you believe that? There's lots of games where animals are hurt and/or killed, or where animal products are used.

Why did PETA select this game? And why start now?

In the newest Tomb Raider you are required to kill a deer to survive the opening sequence, didnt see that in PeTAs report on gaming

Why now, and why is whaling different than deer hunting? The difference between deer hunting and whaling is like the difference between leather and fur. They're both terrible from an animal rights perspective, but the effort against the fur industry - and the whaling industry - is actually winnable in the foreseeable future. Deer hunting and leather wearing are not as easy to end, for a variety of reasons, some of them similar. Even a lot of nonveg*ns support the ending of the fur and whaling industries, and the more people can become aware of how cruel they are to animals, the greater the chance of them stopping. Same as with fur, there is a global movement to end whaling. Groups like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace get a lot of support even among people who otherwise are not interested in animal issues. Likewise I would sooner - and have - spent my time trying to end fur than leather. It's more efficient use of resources to try to knock out that industry. So many people do not draw any distinctions between industries that hurt animals - and think it's somehow hypocritical to focus on one and not another - but I think that's a lack of nuance and understanding strategy and resource use. Most activists would understand the difference.

I play Mario but have no desire to jump on mushrooms or turtles so I doubt any of the AC players finish the game and think 'I support whaling now it looks pretty awesome'.

Well that's a big debate. Do video games have any influence on people's sensitization to violence? Probably video showing callous violence towards animals and people does influence attitudes and sensitivity towards that violence, but it certainly doesn't mean that someone will commit it themselves.

 

[das_nut]

Why now, and why is whaling different than deer hunting? The difference between deer hunting and whaling is like the difference between leather and fur. They're both terrible from an animal rights perspective, but the effort against the fur industry - and the whaling industry - is actually winnable in the foreseeable future. Deer hunting and leather wearing are not as easy to end, for a variety of reasons, some of them similar.

But aren't people more likely to be inspired to take up deer hunting (which takes just a rifle, a permit, and a deer stand) than whaling (which takes a ship, a crew, etc)?

Not that I'm really sure either inspires people to hunt or whale. If video games depicting hunting had a strong effect on people, we'd all be in covered wagons shooting many buffalo even though we can only carry back 200 pounds of meat.

 

[Alice-Bee]

Youre going so far off the point.
Proper sane campaigning will end cruelty.
Banging ones fists on the table and shouting about a small unrelated part of a video game whilst waving the Veg*n flag makes us look like flipping nutters. Its hinders AR progression IMBHO.

Do video games have any influence on people's sensitization to violence?

No. They do not. The average person has the illigence to disconnect a video game to real life.

 

[Ansciess]

But aren't people more likely to be inspired to take up deer hunting (which takes just a rifle, a permit, and a deer stand) than whaling (which takes a ship, a crew, etc)?

Not that I'm really sure either inspires people to hunt or whale. If video games depicting hunting had a strong effect on people, we'd all be in covered wagons shooting many buffalo even though we can only carry back 200 pounds of meat.

More people wear leather than fur. But if I'm choosing, I'm going to work on a campaign to close a fur store than to close a leather store. In fact I have. For the reason I stated.

People may not be inspired to hunt whales by a video game. In fact in the US it's not legal unless you're a Native American. But I do believe that games can desensitize people to violence. And the goal of the international campaign against whaling is to sensitize people to the plight of whales so they'll be on board with the campaign, whether they themselves do it or not.

 

[Ansciess]

Youre going so far off the point.
Proper sane campaigning will end cruelty.
Banging ones fists on the table and shouting about a small unrelated part of a video game whilst waving the Veg*n flag makes us look like flipping nutters. Its hinders AR progression IMBHO.

No. They do not. The average person has the illigence to disconnect a video game to real life.

"Proper sane campaigning?" Geez, all they did was issue a statement saying they don't approve of the whaling, not get naked and protest gaming stores. I don't think their statement was some big controversial thing.

Re. "The average person has the illigence to disconnect a video game to real life" - that is controversial.

Bruce Bartholow, study leader and associate professor of psychology in the MU College of Arts and Science, along with Christopher Engelhardt, graduate student in the MU Department of Psychological Sciences, and researchers from The Ohio State University and VU University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, have found that the brain becomes less responsive to violence after excessive and short exposure.

Previous studies have shown that violent video games encourage aggressive behavior in players, but until now, no one has really known why.

The MU researchers theorize that the brains of gamers become less responsive to violence, which leads to an increase in aggression as the line between appropriate behavior and inappropriate behavior is blurred.

http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Viol...+Cause+Heightened+Aggression/article21735.htm

 

[das_nut]

But I do believe that games can desensitize people to violence.

Studies seem to be all over the place when it comes to videogames and violence. Some show a link. Some don't. Most meta studies seem to be on the side of not showing a link between video games and violence.

It is also noteworthy that while video games have become popular, especially more violent and realistic video games, crime rates have not generally risen.

 

[Alice-Bee]

Right...youre missing the original point of my Ubisoft/PeTA post.

PeTa always pick the wrong way to go about things.
Picking on a VERY POPULAR game that features a SMALL AMOUNT of whaling thats its NOT EVEN GLORIFYING makes veg*ns and AR supporters look like fruitcakes.
I for one wish PeTA wouldnt take it upon themselves to speak for us as a group. People who are hardcore gamers have seen that article and mocked veg*ns/PeTA even more.
So well done PeTA.
I have a friend who plays the most vile games, watches the sickest movies and he is the most kind, sweet caring polite man anyone could want to know...you can prove any end result you want if you look hard enough for the right evidence. Man shoots up school...did he play GTA...yes...well lets blame video games!

 

[Ansciess]

Studies seem to be all over the place when it comes to videogames and violence.

It is also noteworthy that while video games have become popular, especially more violent and realistic video games, crime rates have not generally risen.

That's why I said it's controversial, but there are certainly good studies out there that support the desensitization argument, so a blanket statement that there's no correlation between attitudes and games is not supported.

No one argues a one -to-one correlation of 'see a video game, go commit an act of violence.' So crime statistics are not the best measure of this.

 

[Ansciess]

PeTa always pick the wrong way to go about things.
Picking on a VERY POPULAR game that features a SMALL AMOUNT of whaling thats its NOT EVEN GLORIFYING makes veg*ns and AR supporters look like fruitcakes.
I for one wish PeTA wouldnt take it upon themselves to speak for us as a group. People who are hardcore gamers have seen that article and mocked veg*ns/PeTA even more.
So well done PeTA.

I get that YOU don't think PETA goes about things in the right way, but they can't please everyone. The most mild statement that they make is going to get a rise out of someone. This discussion is a case in point, in my opinion. I understand disliking some of their more controversial tactics, I just don't think this is one of them.

PETA doesn't speak for "us as a group." Some people might think that, but that's the same mentality as blaming all black people for the negative messages in rap music. I've seen people do that too, but that's a problem with the people making the sweeping judgment lumping everyone together who has one feature in common, not a problem with black folks in general.

I have a friend who plays the most vile games, watches the sickest movies and he is the most kind, sweet caring polite man anyone could want to know...you can prove any end result you want if you look hard enough for the right evidence. Man shoots up school...did he play GTA...yes...well lets blame video games!

That's pure anecdote, which isn't a good argument.

 

[das_nut]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.