So I had a bit of an argument with the ACL

[Tim Colwill]

I was invited on Melbourne's SYN 90.7 radio to talk about R18+ games with Dan Flynn from the Australian Christian Lobby. Thought some of you might enjoy listening!

http://www.r18games.com.au/files/R18+_V ... pencer.mp3

[Trent Stollery]

how do I +1 this

[Tommy Flameseeker]

"Modern Warfare 2: World of Warcraft"
I lol'd SO MUCH

Anyways, Excellent argument. Would listen to again.

[tranquil]

[MUG]

An argument with the ACL, It's a good indication your on the right side.

To be honest I can't for the life of me understand why ACL still have any credibility what so ever.

You explained the truth of the subject well.
The suggestion of banning religion based on his own argument made him backup real quick.
Nice work.

[inz]

What a conservative dick.

[Makena]

Like I said on twitter, if he'd done his own research he might have been able to form better arguments, they can't keep falling back on things that have been refuted. That coupled with bringing up the manifesto of a less than psychological sound individual to try and support it, makes it hard to take much of what he said seriously. (The same manifesto in which the author claimed to be 100% christian too )

Well argued Tim, don't know how you don't just resort to their own tactics, and just make as many outrageous claims as possible and see which ones stick.

[inz]

How's that working out for Israel and Palatine?

Personally I think the removal of religion from the world would have a more positive effect on the world at hand than a few adult targeted video games.

The GTA3 thing was just retarded - we don't live in America. We also have MUCH stricter gun laws. And I can't EVER remember stabbing someone in GTA anyway... Was there even a knife? Lol.

[Nightstaar]

Very well debated Tim. Was a great listen and glad you're involved.

[diamondd]

the bit about banning stuff that crazy people say they're acting out was awesome, and humourous.

[hellbender]

I think Tims point about it ultimately coming down to the parents is the crux of the whole debate. The government does what it can to make parents aware of things that would not be suitable for children. It cannot interfere with peoples private lives and tell them what to do without ultimately encroaching on their free will.

There is a point of morality, where the government steps in for extreme cases (refused classification material). I guess this is where the ACL is contending, that the government needs to be more aggressive in refusing classification and are using violent video games as their evidence. The point where the ACL fail is that there is no solid link between video game violence and increases in crime as Tim pointed out. There are isolated cases where crazies have copied video games, but its not a common (everyday) occurrence in society. Also those crazies may have copied a game, but what drove them to such violent acts in the first place? As Tim said, it probably wasn't the video game, but many other factors.

I cant believe that there is still stuff going on about this. I thought this argument was put to rest when we got the go ahead for the R18+ classification.

[MunchY]

Great job. Very well spoken, and I loved the subtle organised religion mention. You really covered every point mate.

I'll never understand how they just sit there and constantly get destroyed with simple logic whilst responding with the same lines about GTA and FPS games, with the occasional 'rape' thrown into incite some panic for the parents.
Frustrating..

[revengous]

Hey tim,

I had a listen, pretty good stuff, you did seem a bit agitated for a bit of it, was that simply because it was going in circles for part of it? (you agree about protecting children, he counters with the same agreement etc) or was it because you were against a religious organisation? do you think you would've kept your cool if it was against a non religious opposition?

(posting it here, instead of a pm, incase anyone else is curious - Im not trying to start a flame war against religlion)

[DarkMellie]

You just destroyed him. So proud to even know you, you're a famous person to me now.

[Tim Colwill]

Hey tim,

I had a listen, pretty good stuff, you did seem a bit agitated for a bit of it, was that simply because it was going in circles for part of it? (you agree about protecting children, he counters with the same agreement etc) or was it because you were against a religious organisation? do you think you would've kept your cool if it was against a non religious opposition?

(posting it here, instead of a pm, incase anyone else is curious - Im not trying to start a flame war against religlion)

Mostly just mad. I got no beef with any organisation really, religious or otherwise! He was just saying some silly things and it was clear he didn't know what he was talking about. I knew Anders Brevik would show up at some point there and, yep, there it was. Sort of got mad around that point.

Thanks for the kind words y'all, much appreciated