View Full Version : BMX XXX Banned in Australia

10-19-2002, 07:53 AM
My brother sent me this link because this is one of his most looked forward to games. And he knows I go here and he said "it sucks for all the tweaktowners that have xbox's." And btw he works for this xbox site


10-22-2002, 02:27 AM
i saw a quicktime movie somewhere that had everyone in my office on the floor cracking up. pimps, strip clubs, bikini clad bikers. strippers. not that bad really but a lot of parental groups are trying to get it banned in the USA as well.

10-23-2002, 11:47 PM
Thats totally F----ed up :thumbs do

10-24-2002, 01:43 AM
It's time for another FA-MAS rant. What's wrong with pimps, strip clubs, bikini clad bikers. With the exception of pimps, all that stuff is legal here in the US. I'm sure there in AUS also. Except maybe pimps are legal also? Probably not. I'll put it this way, we know BMX XXX is going to have a Mature (or is it adult) rating. Now, if you're of age to buy it, that's fine. Do what you want. It should be available to those people. But it should not be for underage people. I hate to say it, but it's up to parents to keep tabs on their children. You catch young Johnny playing this game, yank it away. That's all

I really hate it when video games are blamed. I mean really. Be it a child that shoots up a school or a sniper that's killed 12 people. Then they find that the person played video games. They always make the assumption that video games are the cause. An example, Columbine High here in the US. They found that one of the shooters played Doom. Next thing you see police and newscasters saying that that may have been the cause that made them do what they did. Same for the sniper situation, except they can't find the sniper. But some fool at a news station knows there is a game named Sniper Scope, and tried to make the connection. "The shooter may have played this game Sniper Scope".

They always make the assumption that these games altered these people's perception of reality. That's nonsence. I guess I can see the argument that games are getting more and more realistic. But, If the person knew fantasy from reality and wrong from right in the first place these would not have happened. Seriously, two examples. I know Beefy and I play alot ov video games. I know Beefy plays, or played GTA3. Do you see Beefy stealing cars, running drugs, shooting people with a bazooka? I don't think so. And me, I play alot of MGS2. You don't see me performing insane areobatics, breaking people's necks, and using high powered weapons. Again know. I know the difference between fantasy and reality. As I'm sure does Beefy.

Live in your world, play in ours. That's one of Sony's slogans got Playstation. That's it right there. That lets you know that the game world is different from the real world.

This may sound cheesy. Games don't kill people, people kill people. :D


10-28-2002, 09:22 AM
This may sound cheesy. Games don't kill people, people kill people. :D


I agree with the "spirit" of what you are trying to say, but disagree with alot of your conclusions. To say that people are not affected by the stimuli which they injest is simply incorrect and is easily disproven in controlled experiments. People are affected ENORMOUSLY by what they consume. There is a a multi billion dollar advertising industry out there which would also disagree with your assumptions. They pour billions of dollars a year into advertising because they know what any 1st year psychology major does........... That images and information (however consumed) produce a measureable result which generates huge profits for business and industry. To put it plainly, they know that what we see, smell, touch, hear, taste DOES affect us.

Also to say that violent games don't affect people in one way or another is wrong too. Let's ask an expert and see what he thinks.


He is a retired U.S. Army Ranger and former Professor at West Point University. He trains the FBI, Special Forces, Marine Corps, and Law Enforcement nation wide. Let's see what he says:

excerpt from interview

I am personally on the road almost 300 days a year. I train the FBI; I train the Special Forces; I train the Marine Corps; I train law enforcement, nationwide and worldwide. My job is to examine the act of killing. How do we take a healthy 18-year-old boy, a soldier, a 22-year-old police officer, and make them capable of pulling the trigger? The mechanism we use is, we make killing a conditioned reflex, stimulus/response, stimulus/response. At the moment of truth, the proper stimulus pops up in front of them, and they kill without conscious thought.

If you truly dwell on the magnitude of what you are doing when you kill another human being; if you truly dwell on the reality of another living, vital person, who is loved, and thinks and feels; that's a very difficult thing to do. You've got to separate yourself from the humanity of the person you are killing—turn them into just a target. And the best mechanism we ever found for doing that, was this killing simulator, in which, instead of using bullseye targets, as we did in World War II, we transitioned to a man-made silhouette, and we made killing a conditioned reflex.

The same phenomena that the military and law enforcement uses to enable killing—which is done with the safeguard of discipline—is being done indiscriminately to our children with violent video games. There is a major study that is going to be released in Indianapolis this year. An outfit called the Center for Successful Parenting, has paid several hundred thousand dollars—that's a lot of money, in this field—in research, hooking MRIs to children playing video games; magnetic resonating imaging, tracing the brain activity of children playing video games.

Now basically, the children who've never played the violent video game before, when they have to kill somebody, they're thinking about it. It's a conscious, thinking effort. But, the children who've played the games a lot, and are very good at the games—there is no conscious thought; there is nothing but brain stem activity; it completely bypasses their conscious brain. The video game turns killing into a conditioned reflex.

Now, you need three things to kill: You need the weapon, the skill, and the will to kill. The video games provide two out of three. They give the skill and the will to kill. The weapons have been there for a long, long time. During World War I, and prior to World War I, and throughout the years after World War I, and throughout World War II, high-capacity 9 mm pistols were everywhere in Germany. We had literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young soldiers, walking through Germany with military quality weapons, and high-capacity 9 mm pistols. The first real, double-stacked, high-capacity 9 mm pistol was probably the German Mauser, to this very day a highly-respected gun. It is well over 100 years old. The Luger is close to 100 years old, and there were hundreds of thousands of them in World War I. The weapons have been there for a long, long time....

The new factor, is that the violent video games are giving the boys the skill and the will to kill; even as we reduce the number of weapons, the ability to use the weapons has gone up. If a criminal wants drugs, he'll get drugs, anywhere in the world. Drugs are illegal, but if the criminal wants drugs, he'll get them. If a criminal wants guns, he'll get them. No matter how illegal you make them, if a criminal wants them, he'll get them. But, whether or not the teenager has the desire to use drugs—if drugs have been glamorized, and he's been taught that it is the right thing to do—it's the media and the violent video games, that are far more important in this equation. If there is a new factor occurring, [it's that] we're greatly reducing the supply of guns. And yet, the incidence of these kinds of brutal murders—that has never happened before in human history, never before in human history.

For the full interview.....go here: http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2002/2920hzl_grossman.html

Not trying to flame you dude.......just strongly disagree with some of your conclusions.


10-28-2002, 11:00 AM
Here is another expert speaking on the subject:

Violent Video Games Testimony
Chicago City Council, October 30, 2000
Michael Rich, MD, MPH, FAAP
American Academy of Pediatrics

excerpt from testimony..........

Over the past forty years, researchers in the fields of public health, communications, and
psychology have examined the effects of entertainment violence on young people. Research has
shown that the strongest single factor contributing to violent behavior is previous exposure to
violence. More than 3,500 research studies have examined the association between media
violence and violent behavior; all but 18 have shown that the more violence you see, the more
likely you are to be violent. Virtual violence that is realistic, portrayed without pain and
suffering, and experienced in the context of good feelings is most likely to be emulated.
Exposure to media violence has been found to result in increased acceptance of violence as an
appropriate means of conflict resolution. Media exaggerate the prevalence of violence in the
world, giving rise to fear of being harmed. This is strong motivation to protect oneself by
carrying a weapon and being more aggressive. The most insidious and potent effect of media
violence, which affects even the majority of young people who do not themselves become
violent, is to desensitize young people to “real life” violence and to the harm it causes its victims.
This is not a simple problem. Violence is complex—many factors contribute. The factors that
underlie violent behavior include some of the most vexing and far-reaching social issues of our
day, issues with which we have been struggling for generations. They are not easily or quickly
solved. Physicians have to be practical people. While the major issues of our society are being
wrestled with, we have to intervene on those parts of the problems that can be addressed directly
and quickly. Some research that can guide us:
· Epidemiologists who studied factors associated with violence, including poverty,
racial discrimination, substance abuse, inadequate schools, joblessness and family
dissolution, found that exposure to violent media was a factor in half of the 10,000
homicides committed the previous year.
· A study begun in the early 1960s found that boys who watched more television had
higher levels of aggression at age 8, a history of aggressive behavior at age 19, and
were more violent with their children and had been convicted of more violent crimes
by age 30. The effects of media exposure are cumulative and the resulting behaviors
are lasting.
· The findings of hundreds of studies, analyzed as a whole, showed the strength of the
relationship between television exposure and aggressive behavior to be greater than
that of calcium intake and bone mass, condom non-use and sexually transmitted HIV,
lead poisoning and lower I.Q., or passive tobacco smoke and lung cancer,
associations upon which we physicians routinely base public health interventions.

For full testimony go here: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/rich-videogameviolence.pdf

There are literally hundreds of sources from a great diversity of experts concerning this subject. There have been hundreds if not thousands of scientific studies regarding this subject.

10-28-2002, 12:30 PM
I understand everything you've said. The main point I got was that the training LT. COL. DAVID GROSSMAN provides to those agencies makes the victim or potential victim just a target. It take away the feelings that they're living, breathing, humans. The fact they may be someon's father, brother, or whatever they're just targets. It's like a reflex. If video games do this, why have I not killed anyone? And I would hestiate to think about it if I were in that situation. Maybe some of my points are incorrect, as i'm basing my conclusions on myself. Maybe I have more restraint that these peope in these "controlled" studies. Idon't know. But either way, video games did not pull the trigger.

10-29-2002, 07:56 AM
That's fine man......I wasn't trying to flame you. In response to your question about why you haven't killed anyone yet......I would simply say that not everyone who see's a Mcdonalds commercial will go buy a Big Mac................:D