On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 18/09/2013 4:18 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
If you ask why someone would do something unhealthy like smoking then perhaps you should also ask why people do unhealthy things like playing computer games which are very common in our community. Obviously people consider that the short term pleasure of such activities outweighs the health costs.
Yes, that is true to a point. But smoking effects more third parties in bad ways than gaming (on the whole). Walking down the street with cigarette smoke wafting into my face and beard isn't pleasant at all.
To deal with that they could start by enforcing current laws regarding smoking. For example smoking is banned at all covered areas at stations and bus and tram stops but you never see anyone getting booked for it. They should make the fines for such actions large enough to cover the cost of enforcement and hire lots of people to book such criminals.
Even in the gaming arena, I have strong views .... I heard an interesting comment on a podcast -- let's say your emails are being monitored and you mention doing things that are part of a violent game, but the context in that single email makes it look like you are talking real life stuff. Ignore the fact that you just bought the game hours earlier and maybe sent an email about that earlier. Replace email with tweet or instant message ... SMS or any other medium. Context counts, but if the game wasn't so horrifically violent in nature, then their would be cause for concern about the latter communication.
If games require you to rape, murder, attack -- in no particular order, then why should such a game even exist?
So you are arguing that the cowardly policies of the government in regard to "terrorism" are a reason for censoring games? I think that the issue of game censorship should be solely based on whether it encourages criminal activity.
For some of us the costs of such things aren't relevant. On any sort of IT industry pay the price of Coke doesn't matter and as a stimulant if it allows slightly more work then it will give a good return on investment.
Principle is far more important than dollars. Marketing says if you can get away with over charging, then you do so -- more easily with a duopoly or monopoly [coles / woolworths].
Coke and Pepsi are very profitable businesses. But their products are still cheap enough that you could drink a couple every day while doing computer work and not have it make much of an income on your bank balance at the end of the week.
In terms of regulating tobacco I don't think that adults choosing pure tobacco products such as cigars has ever involved a significant portion of the population. It's cigarettes that have chemicals to make them more addictive that are advertised to children that are the biggest problem.
Yes, but even though cigarettes have so many chemicals, that doesn't make cigars the answer, there are other alternatives.
I'm not suggesting that cigars are a solution, merely that the usage patterns of cigars suggest what cigarette usage might be like if it wasn't for unethical production and marketting.
Also to reduce drug use we could work on policies to make people's lives not suck. If things are going well for someone then heroin just won't appeal to them.
There are 3rd world problems and 1st world problems -- many 1st world problems have people saying their life sucks ... it doesn't, they just need to improve their perception of what really matters in the world.
If you think that everyone who's not in the first world should be happy for that and nothing else then you really don't understand people. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/