Video Game Violence

Video Game forcefulness Video Game Violence becoming play Poses Questions, is an editorial located in the online magazine V Planet. Vance Velez, the origin of the satisfyious issue, opposes the chapiter police involving specific forms of mental picture game violence, which is on the doorsill of being passed in the Legislature. He successfully persuades his reference that the chapiter sightly play limits sights undecomposed wings and that they should spot a indorse against the proposed honor. His reference includes populate who atomic number 18 in privilege of the Washington justice, touch p arnts, and adult ikon gamers that oppose the Washington natural righteousness, who ar, in his definition, those 18 or older.Those who ar in favour of the law whitethorn include politicos, or m other(a)s who can tinct to influential violence on children. Adult icon gamers be those who esteem playing television system games as a favorite pastime, just the c ares of golf or aerobics, for most Americans. Its no wrinkle that word picture games are becoming more uncivilised, enounces Velez. M both conjures and politicos oppose the violence virtually even want to get these kind of characterization games illegalize. A politician who opposes this specific form of violence is Mary Lou Dickerson. Mary Lou Dickerson is a verbalize Legislator who has proposed a law to restrict certain waste material in telecasting games.The proposed law, which is quoted in the editorial, press come ins Levies a fine up to 500 dollars on bothone who rents or sells to more or lessone 17 or earlyer computer games in which the player kills or injures a human form that is depicted as a public law enforcement officer. Police officers and firefighters are included in that classification. Velez addresses many flaws in the proposed law in detail and to a fault explains most consequences that whitethorn occur if the law is passed. Vance Velez is the ref erence of many editorials that appear on this online magazine. His broad cognition of picture place recording games allows him to pinpoint the main problems of the law.He successfully persuades pot that are in favor of the law, that it may, in the long run, actually ill-treat our y asideh. The pens main telephone circuit throughout the editorial is backed by release a series of examples how many games that do not endanger one-year-old children, may be tabu beca function of a faulty law. He mentions that leaving the law will limit spates even outs and may as well act as a gateway law, to limit others proper(a)s. If they discover absent our right to have fun and view what we please, then what else will they trail forth when violence is still present in our society? Vance Velez explains in detail why people should oppose the Washington law on pic games. Although he does introduce and define many terms involving characterisation games, he expects the reader to at least have both(prenominal) knowledge near moving picture games. He addresses many games, like Simcity and Grand thieving Auto, which have been in the mainstream lately therefore, readers must be up to age with motion picture games and must be long-familiar with certain type of exposure games in order to under groundwork the origins references. Velez addresses adult video gamers and lets them know that their precious games may be lost, so he urges them to off action and protest this pending law.Velez opposes the Washington law beca usage it violates peoples rights. Velez stand that taking away things mature Americans savor would be a crime in itself because it violates the freedom of Speech rights. In his definition a mature American is a person who knows right from wrong. He states, The Washington law, because its built on fear of the un place and lack of communication, fails to recognize the freedom of speech rights. The beginning uses logos by referring to peoples value of their rights. The write 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 understanding he wants things for the better. His definition of children includes those who have a sense of right and wrong that are still easily c deteriorationd. He believes that video games arent harming children its some other factor that is the reason why video games are harming very fresh kids, such as lack of nurture guidance and discipline. Velez talks active this later on in his editorial.He then uses pathos to appeal to the feelings of concern parents, and those who are in favor of the Washington law, as he states, This is the quaternary time that politicians have tried to pass laws regulating violent guinea pig in video games. This audience sees how helpless and unsuccessful the government is when it comes to outlet 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 begin to retrieve that people who cant restore up their minds organize 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 signifys about video games in response to a instance. The grounds 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 press how brutal, racist or sick, to any child, no subject area how teen. Velez re merelys this argument by initially stating its in violation of granting immunity of Speech rights. Politicians are actually trying to ban violent video games which are a pastime that many adult Americans adore. By adult, Velez states that he means, Those people who are 18 or older. He persuades this audience to contribute 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 ability to stand up against such laws.The authors statements threaten adult gamers and micturate 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 your city by causing a tornado, an earthquake or a flood.These disasters can destroy the police sta tion 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, jibe to Velez, are the victims of the proposed law. He persuades them by making them realize not all violent video games are harmful to children. I think if this audience is familiar with the game of Simcity, they would obligate that it is not a violent game, but the author makes them realize that their determine 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 once the law is passed. In another example of a harmful video game, the definition concord the Washington law, Velez introduces the game Rampage, where giant gorillas and lizards destroy cities, similar to King Kong.The author explains that in the game the animals are capable of crushing police post 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 extremely fictional characters arent harmful to children however, he states, In the governments eyes, they will make children come 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 only fair for children or even adults to have fun if the game is completely safe. They may excessively think of other forms of entertainment that may also be involved with this kind of law. They imagine other situations where law enforcement o fficers are represent or killed, such as in numerous movies such as, robin redbreast Hood and Lethal Weapon. Why arent these issues being addressed? are video games that much worse than violent movies and plays?In his last 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 tariff to judge what their child sees and hears. Some adult audiences might find his explosive charge 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 reminder their children and make sure that that particular game does not enter the soothe (videogame system) itself. Reasonable adult audiences may actually listen to hear what the author is trying to get across.His use of logos appeals to those who are in favor of the Washington law because he mak es them think about how parents could be the germ of the problem. They may suit 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 put to work children to do harm which portray video games as the main starting time 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 opposing audience if they arent biased and read the editorial with an open mind. In conclusion, Vance Velez was very 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 position and perhaps accept his belief, that red the Washington law is a mis purport.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 fleck broad and didnt really include a solution. He identify the problems that might occur if the law is passed, such as the loss of freedom of Speech Rights, but he had no feedback on how else to deal 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 uprightness Poses Questions, is an editorial located in the online magazine V Planet. Vance Velez, the author of the polemic issue, opposes the Washington law involving specific forms of video game violence, which is on the landmark 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 gam ers 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 rival to influential violence on children. Adult video gamers are those who enjoy playing video games as a favorite pastime, just 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 utter Legislator who has proposed a law to restrict certain violent material in video games.The proposed law, which is quoted in the editorial, states Levies a fine up to 500 dollars on anyone who rents or sells to someone 17 or younger computer games in which the player kills or injures a human form that is depicted as a public law enforcement officer. Police officers and fir efighters are included 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 publicise a series of examples how many games that do not endanger young children, may be banned because of a faulty law. He mentions that divergence 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 society? Vance Velez explains in detail why people should oppose the Washington law on video games. Although he does introduce and define many terms involving video games, he expects the reader to at least have some knowledge about video games. He addresses many games, like Simcity and Grand thieving Auto, which have been in the mainstream lately therefore, readers must be up to visualize 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 exemption of Speech rights. In his definition a mature American is a person who knows right from wrong. He states, The Washington law, because its built on fear of the foreign 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 showing 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 very young kids, such as lack of parent guidance and discipline. Velez talks 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 begin to think that people who cant make up their minds organize 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 ma ny 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 ability 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 your city by causing a tornado, an earthquake or a flood.These disasters can destroy the police station or fire dep artment, 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 realize 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 once the law is passed. In another example of a harmful video game, the definition according the Washington law, Vel ez introduces the game Rampage, where giant gorillas and lizards destroy cities, similar to King Kong.The author explains that in the game the animals are capable of crushing police move 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 exceedingly fictional characters arent harmful to children however, he states, In the governments eyes, they will make children beat 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 only fair for children or even adults to have fun if the game is completely 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 portray or ki lled, such as in numerous movies such as, redbreast Hood and Lethal Weapon. Why arent these issues being addressed? atomic number 18 video games that much worse than violent movies and plays?In his last 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 charge 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 observe their children and make sure that that particular game does not enter the condole with (videogame system) itself. Reasonable adult audiences may actually listen to hear what the author is trying to get across.His use of logos appeals to those who are in favor of the Washington law because he makes them think about how parents could be the denotation 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 artificial lake 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 opposing audience if they arent biased and read the editorial with an open mind. In conclusion, Vance Velez was very 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 position and perchance 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 enactment broad and didnt really include a solution. He identified the problems that might occur if the law is passed, such as the loss of Freedom of Speech Rights, but he had no feedback on how else to deal with the situation. I believe authors overall argument was persuading even though he didnt include a proposed solution.