I think its hilarious that Christians try to be two forces at once:) but we all need to make our money, don't we;)

lea

Hi Pat,

So you want games banned because there is no proof they are safe? Doesn't the same apply to, say, the story of Cinderella? After all, most serial killers would have heard the story of Cinderella at some time in their childhoods. Just because -- as with video games -- there is absolutely no evidence suggesting any connection whatsoever with adult violence, or any mechanism by which that connection might operate, that's hardly a reason not to ban Cinderella, is it? Because we haven't proved it's not the cause. How about some real evidence, if you have any?

And as for Bananas in Pyjamas, well...

I think many video games are sick, disgusting and repulsive. But if we banned everything I think is sick, disgusting and repulsive... well, let's just say that a lot of theologians would be out of work.

I'd like to know the names of the games which are supposedly full of "sadism", "sex' and "violence".
In the main games are banned or modified here because they contain dismemberment or realistic drug use.
I've never come across a mainstream game that featured graphic sex scenes, though apparently such games do exist on the Asian market,
but to sell such a game here would require expensive technical re working, re dubbing and other localisation procedures.
The problem with the argument that more "extreme" games will be on the shelves runs into a big hurdle in the form of sales figures, very violent games are just not that popular or profitable.
According IGN.com to the top games on XBOX this week are:

Portal 2: (non violent, puzzle based action game)
Might and Magic, Clash of Heroes: (non violent, puzzle based role playing game)
Outland: (non violent, puzzle based platform game)
Crysis 2:(science fiction themed shooting game, war themes but no graphic violence)
Dragon Age 2: (contains moderate medieval combat violence and adult themes, suggestive scenes involving lovemaking)

I've played all of those games bar Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 is not suitable for young children, it's rated MA 15+ which, as a parent seems to me to be the right classification.
As for the most popular online competitive games, the shooters like Call Of Duty and Halo I can assure readers that the focus there is very much on the competition, leaderboards and skill rankings rather than violence.
That aspect, the aggressive hyper competitiveness, to me is the only negative aspect of such games,coupled with anonymity it allows for some pretty infantile behaviour, but again, nothing you don't see in real life.

Just what the world needs more violence and sex. Come on we must be able to be happy without that stuff. But as adults we also have a responsibility to think about future generations and not just our own self gratification.

People who play violent video games are nearly always to be found at home...playing violent video games, people who get off on fighting or beating up other people are usually found loitering about the streets..bashing and harassing other people.
Alchohol is by far and away the greatest aggravating factor in violent crime, we don't ban it outright but we have an age restriction which good parents respect.
Only bad parents allow their kids to use harmful products or products with an age restriction, end of story.
It's easy to control what your kids watch, play and do, all computers can be quickly and simply set up to block access to certain content, game consoles have parental controls which can be used to limit the time children play and the restrict the content by rating.
It's simple, if you don't take steps to control the media your kids consume you're a BAD parent.

This wasn't a huge success Lyle.

By the looks of the comments from newbies here you got a bunch of your church mates to jump in and do a bit of astroturfing. Yet even with this this article has only accumulated "77 likes", yet the earlier pro-porn article from Alan McKee http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12079 got "89 Likes", and I didn't see any astroturfing there.

On a related note, related as in it is another issue Lyle campaigns heavily on, Conroy said yesterday that Labour remains committed to their mandatory internet filtering initiative. Which is really weird, considering it doesn't have a hope in Lyle's hades of getting up in the Senate now the Libs have rejected it, and it's even dubious it could get up in lower house given its current makeup.

One theory about why he did continues to flog the dead horse is it is still Labour policy, and Conroy is nothing if not dogged in perusing his assigned tasks. Even if it is to the detriment of his party it seems, because the filter is almost certainly a net vote looser. The policy is up for renewal at Labours National Conference in December. If you care, a letter to your local member reminding them of the likely effects on this policy on their electoral fortunes would be might be opportune. I imagine they would be clutching at any and all available electoral straws right now.