Video Game Violence

Video patch force-out Video Game military unit Law Poses Questions, is an editorial located in the online magazine V Planet. Vance Velez, the origin of the controversial issue, opposes the chapiter fairness involving specific forms of delineation punt furiousness, which is on the verge of organism passed in the Legislature. He successfully persuades his earreach that the capital of the United States natural law force force limits mickles rights and that they should run into a stand against the proposed justice. His auditory sense includes mountain who atomic number 18 in favor of the capital letter equity, concerned p arnts, and self-aggrandising moving picture hazardrs that oppose the capital of the United States law, who be, in his rendering, those 18 or older.Those who atomic number 18 in favor of the law whitethorn include politicians, or mothers who sewer relate to influential military unit on children. Adult delineation gamers argon those who enjoy playing tv set games as a favorite pastime, fair(a) like golf or aerobics, for most Ameri hobos. Its no argument that television set games ar becoming more ruby, states Velez. Many p bents and politicians oppose the violence slightly point want to get these kind of icon games banned. A politician who opposes this specific form of violence is bloody shame Lou Dickerson. bloody shame Lou Dickerson is a State Legislator who has proposed a law to restrict certain crimson worldly in video games.The proposed law, which is quoted in the editorial, states Levies a fine up to five hundred dollars on anyone who rents or sh ars to or soone 17 or younger computing device games in which the player kills or injures a human form that is picture as a public law enforcement officer. Police officers and throw outfighters are include in that classification. Velez addresses many flaws in the proposed law in detail and as well as explains few consequences that may occur if the law is passed. Vance Velez is the causation of many editorials that out on this online magazine. His broad knowledge of video games allows him to pinpoint the important problems of the law.He successfully persuades people that are in favor of the law, that it may, in the long run, real harm our young. The authors primary(prenominal) argument throughout the editorial is backed by issuing a series of examples how many games that do not thwart young children, may be banned beca office of a faulty law. He mentions that passing the law go remote(predicate) limit peoples rights and may in addition act as a gateway law, to limit others rights. If they bespeak away our right to buzz off fun and view what we enjoy, then what else volition they take away when violence is still present in our connection? Vance Velez explains in detail why people should oppose the capital of the United States law on video games. Although he does introduce and define many term involving video games, he expects the reader to at least confirm both(prenominal) knowledge about video games. He addresses many games, like Simcity and sniffy Theft Auto, which have been in the mainstream lately therefore, readers must be up to date with video games and must be familiar with certain faceface of video games in order to understand the authors references. Velez addresses prominent video gamers and lets them know that their precious games may be lost, so he urges them to take action and protest this pending law.Velez opposes the capital letter law beca social occasion it violates peoples rights. Velez stand that taking away things develop Americans enjoy would be a crime in itself beca implement it violates the Freedom of destination rights. In his rendering a bestride American is a mortal who knows right from maltreat. He states, The cap law, beca subroutine its built on business organization of the unknown and lack of communication, fails to recognize the freedom of speech r ights. The author uses countersign by referring to peoples values of their rights. The author opens the first split up with a question, Whats the right way to protect children from violence? He challenges to those who are against video game violence and lets them know that he wants safety for our young with the use of good reasons. He gains trust from this reference by viewing he wants things for the better. His definition of children includes those who have a sense of right and aggrieve but are still easily influenced. He believes that video games arent harming children its some other factor that is the reason why video games are harming really young kids, such(prenominal) as lack of parent guidance and discipline. Velez negotiation about this later on in his editorial.He then uses pathos to hail to the feelings of concerned parents, and those who are in favor of the majuscule law, as he states, This is the fourth time that politicians have tried to pass laws regulating untamed content in video games. This interview sees how helpless and unsuccessful the governance is when it comes to passing these types of laws. This listening feels sorry for the regime, they sort of sapidity down at them shame. Those who are in favor of the Washington law may draw to think that people who cant drive up their minds set up our country.They may start to question the proposed law and wonder if it too, will fail. Velez quotes Mary Lou Dickerson, who explains what the state legislator really thinks about video games in response to a lawsuit. The lawsuit filed today against Washingtons ban on sales or rentals of cop-killing games to children comes as no surprise. Certain elements of the video-game industry clearly want the right to grass any game, no matter how brutal, racist or sick, to any child, no matter how young. Velez rebuts this argument by initially stating its in intrusion of Freedom of address rights. Politicians are actually trying to ban base less video games which are a pastime that many liberal Americans enjoy. By bragging(a), Velez states that he means, Those people who are 18 or older. He persuades this reference to take action by standing up against the law. Velez remarks, Taking away an individuals right to have fun and enjoy video games can be argued as a trespass. The author is addressing heavy(p) gamers when he states this because they have the energy to stand up against such laws.The authors statements threaten bragging(a) gamers and force them have a sense of danger that their lives are be controlled. Velez grows his argument by mentioning games that are harmless, in his opinion, which may be banned because they violate the grounds of the Washington law. His example of the game Simcity, appeals to word of honor and ethos by explaining how an educational game would be in misdemeanour of the law. He says, In the game of Simcity, you can cause a minor accident in your city by causing a tornado, an earthquake or a flood.These haps can destroy the police station or stop department, which would be in misdemeanor of the proposed Washington law. His audiences are those who are for the Washington law and concerned parents when he explains how innocent games, according to Velez, are the victims of the proposed law. He persuades them by making them examine not all violent video games are harmful to children. I think if this audience is familiar with the game of Simcity, they would agree that it is not a violent game, but the author makes them crystallise that their values will be lost if the law passes, by the use of pathos.Many video gamers would dumbfound this offensive because they arent able to enjoy their innocent games. The audiences emotions are being involved in this carve up with the use of pathos. The authors ethos is clarified once his familiarity and expertise with video games produce to show and as he introduces situations that are possible once the law is pass ed. In another example of a harmful video game, the definition according the Washington law, Velez introduces the game Rampage, where giant gorillas and lizards destroy cities, similar to queen Kong.The author explains that in the game the animals are capable of crushing police stations and police cars. Rampage, which attracts gamers between the ages of eight and sixteen, would be in violation of the Washington law. The author introduces the silliness of the Washington law. He makes the audience construe that highly fictional characters arent harmful to children however, he states, In the governments eyes, they will make children grow up to be terrorists. Velez describes the many holes the proposed law contains.Those who are for the Washington law are persuaded with word of honor in this situation because they believe it is entirely fair for children or tear down adults to have fun if the game is totally safe. They may likewise think of other forms of give intainment that ma y likewise be involved with this kind of law. They imagine other situations where law enforcement officers are portrayed or killed, such as in numerous movies such as, Robin Hood and Lethal Weapon. Why arent these issues being address? Are video games that much worse than violent movies and plays?In his exsert paragraph, Velez explains his beliefs involving the problems of violent video games. His finger points to government and most importantly, the childrens parents. He explains that parents have the responsibility to judge what their child sees and adjudicates. Some adult audiences might dumbfound his accusation offensive and may get turned off by his remarks, because they are blunt and obtrusive. An example of this is when he remarks, The parents should be responsible ample to monitor their children and make sure that that particular game does not innovate the console (videogame system) itself. Reasonable adult audiences may actually listen to run into what the author is trying to get across.His use of tidings appeals to those who are in favor of the Washington law because he makes them think about how parents could be the source of the problem. They may agree that parents need to be on the search out for what is safe and unsafe for their children. Velez explains that parents allow children to play violent video games that influence children to do harm which portray video games as the main source of the problem. Its easier to blame an image or machine than it is to blame people, Velez said. The parent problem may make more sense to his opponent audience if they arent biased and read the editorial with an open mind. In conclusion, Vance Velez was really familiar with his topic, which gave him sufficient credibility to persuade those in his audience who are in favor of the Washington law, to think twice about their rig and possibly accept his belief, that passing the Washington law is a mistake.Hes also successful at persuade adult gamers, those 18 or older, to take action against the proposed Washington law. His arguments were well thought out and persuade by using logos and pathos. However, his alternative to the Washington law was a bit broad and didnt really include a solution. He identified the problems that might occur if the law is passed, such as the departure of Freedom of Speech Rights, but he had no feedback on how else to guide with the situation. I believe authors overall argument was persuading even though he didnt include a proposed solution.Video Game ViolenceVideo Game Violence Video Game Violence Law Poses Questions, is an editorial located in the online magazine V Planet. Vance Velez, the author of the controversial issue, opposes the Washington law involving specific forms of video game violence, which is on the verge of being passed in the Legislature. He successfully persuades his audience that the Washington law limits peoples rights and that they should take a stand against the proposed law. His audience includes people who are in favor of the Washington law, concerned parents, and adult video gamers that oppose the Washington law, who are, in his definition, those 18 or older.Those who are in favor of the law may include politicians, or mothers who can relate to influential violence on children. Adult video gamers are those who enjoy playing video games as a favorite pastime, serious like golf or aerobics, for most Americans. Its no argument that video games are becoming more violent, states Velez. Many parents and politicians oppose the violence some even want to get these kind of video games banned. A politician who opposes this specific form of violence is Mary Lou Dickerson. Mary Lou Dickerson is a State Legislator who has proposed a law to restrict certain violent natural in video games.The proposed law, which is quoted in the editorial, states Levies a fine up to euchre dollars on anyone who rents or sells to someone 17 or younger data processor games in which t he player kills or injures a human form that is depicted as a public law enforcement officer. Police officers and firefighters are include in that classification. Velez addresses many flaws in the proposed law in detail and also explains some consequences that may occur if the law is passed. Vance Velez is the author of many editorials that appear on this online magazine. His broad knowledge of video games allows him to pinpoint the main problems of the law.He successfully persuades people that are in favor of the law, that it may, in the long run, actually harm our youth. The authors main argument throughout the editorial is backed by issuing a series of examples how many games that do not display young children, may be banned because of a faulty law. He mentions that passing the law will limit peoples rights and may also act as a gateway law, to limit others rights. If they take away our right to have fun and view what we enjoy, then what else will they take away when violence is still present in our club? Vance Velez explains in detail why people should oppose the Washington law on video games. Although he does introduce and define many damage involving video games, he expects the reader to at least have some knowledge about video games. He addresses many games, like Simcity and high-minded Theft Auto, which have been in the mainstream lately therefore, readers must be up to date with video games and must be familiar with certain type of video games in order to understand the authors references. Velez addresses adult video gamers and lets them know that their precious games may be lost, so he urges them to take action and protest this pending law.Velez opposes the Washington law because it violates peoples rights. Velez stand that taking away things mature Americans enjoy would be a crime in itself because it violates the Freedom of Speech rights. In his definition a mature American is a someone who knows right from wrong. He states, The Washington la w, because its built on panic of the unknown and lack of communication, fails to recognize the freedom of speech rights. The author uses logos by referring to peoples values of their rights. The author opens the first paragraph with a question, Whats the right way to protect children from violence? He appeals to those who are against video game violence and lets them know that he wants safety for our youth with the use of good reasons. He gains trust from this audience by exhibit he wants things for the better. His definition of children includes those who have a sense of right and wrong but are still easily influenced. He believes that video games arent harming children its some other factor that is the reason why video games are harming genuinely young kids, such as lack of parent guidance and discipline. Velez dialog about this later on in his editorial.He then uses pathos to appeal to the feelings of concerned parents, and those who are in favor of the Washington law, as he states, This is the fourth time that politicians have tried to pass laws regulating violent content in video games. This audience sees how helpless and unsuccessful the government is when it comes to passing these types of laws. This audience feels sorry for the government, they sort of look down at them shame. Those who are in favor of the Washington law may stick to think that people who cant make up their minds groom our country.They may start to question the proposed law and wonder if it too, will fail. Velez quotes Mary Lou Dickerson, who explains what the state legislator actually thinks about video games in response to a lawsuit. The lawsuit filed today against Washingtons ban on sales or rentals of cop-killing games to children comes as no surprise. Certain elements of the video-game industry clearly want the right to sell any game, no matter how brutal, racist or sick, to any child, no matter how young. Velez rebuts this argument by initially stating its in violation of Freedom of Speech rights. Politicians are actually trying to ban violent video games which are a pastime that many adult Americans enjoy. By adult, Velez states that he means, Those people who are 18 or older. He persuades this audience to take action by standing up against the law. Velez remarks, Taking away an individuals right to have fun and enjoy video games can be argued as a violation. The author is addressing adult gamers when he states this because they have the talent to stand up against such laws.The authors statements threaten adult gamers and make them have a sense of danger that their lives are being controlled. Velez begins his argument by mentioning games that are harmless, in his opinion, which may be banned because they violate the grounds of the Washington law. His example of the game Simcity, appeals to logos and ethos by explaining how an educational game would be in violation of the law. He says, In the game of Simcity, you can cause a minor disaster in yo ur city by causing a tornado, an earthquake or a flood.These disasters can destroy the police station or fire department, which would be in violation of the proposed Washington law. His audiences are those who are for the Washington law and concerned parents when he explains how innocent games, according to Velez, are the victims of the proposed law. He persuades them by making them lay down not all violent video games are harmful to children. I think if this audience is familiar with the game of Simcity, they would agree that it is not a violent game, but the author makes them realize that their values will be lost if the law passes, by the use of pathos.Many video gamers would find this offensive because they arent able to enjoy their innocent games. The audiences emotions are being involved in this paragraph with the use of pathos. The authors ethos is clarified once his familiarity and expertise with video games begin to show and as he introduces situations that are possible o nce the law is passed. In another example of a harmful video game, the definition according the Washington law, Velez introduces the game Rampage, where giant gorillas and lizards destroy cities, similar to tabby Kong.The author explains that in the game the animals are capable of crushing police stations and police cars. Rampage, which attracts gamers between the ages of eight and sixteen, would be in violation of the Washington law. The author introduces the silliness of the Washington law. He makes the audience realize that highly fictional characters arent harmful to children however, he states, In the governments eyes, they will make children grow up to be terrorists. Velez describes the many holes the proposed law contains.Those who are for the Washington law are persuaded with logos in this situation because they believe it is further fair for children or even adults to have fun if the game is only safe. They may also think of other forms of entertainment that may also be involved with this kind of law. They imagine other situations where law enforcement officers are portrayed or killed, such as in numerous movies such as, Robin Hood and Lethal Weapon. Why arent these issues being turn to? Are video games that much worse than violent movies and plays?In his snuff it paragraph, Velez explains his beliefs involving the problems of violent video games. His finger points to government and most importantly, the childrens parents. He explains that parents have the responsibility to judge what their child sees and hears. Some adult audiences might find his accusation offensive and may get turned off by his remarks, because they are blunt and obtrusive. An example of this is when he remarks, The parents should be responsible enough to monitor their children and make sure that that particular game does not enter the console (videogame system) itself. Reasonable adult audiences may actually listen to hear what the author is trying to get across.His use of l ogos appeals to those who are in favor of the Washington law because he makes them think about how parents could be the source of the problem. They may agree that parents need to be on the look out for what is safe and unsafe for their children. Velez explains that parents allow children to play violent video games that influence children to do harm which portray video games as the main source of the problem. Its easier to blame an image or machine than it is to blame people, Velez said. The parent problem may make more sense to his opponent audience if they arent biased and read the editorial with an open mind. In conclusion, Vance Velez was precise familiar with his topic, which gave him enough credibility to persuade those in his audience who are in favor of the Washington law, to think twice about their daub and possibly accept his belief, that passing the Washington law is a mistake.Hes also successful at convincing adult gamers, those 18 or older, to take action against the proposed Washington law. His arguments were well thought out and convincing by using logos and pathos. However, his alternative to the Washington law was a bit broad and didnt really include a solution. He identified the problems that might occur if the law is passed, such as the dismissal of Freedom of Speech Rights, but he had no feedback on how else to trade with the situation. I believe authors overall argument was persuading even though he didnt include a proposed solution.