Video Game Violence
Video 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 people’s 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, just like golf or aerobics, for most Americans. “It’s 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 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 firefighters 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 author’s main argument throughout the editorial is backed by issuing a series of examples how many games that do not endanger young children, may be banned because of a faulty law. He mentions that passing the law will limit people’s 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 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 author’s references. Velez addresses adult video gamers and let’s 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 people’s 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 person who knows right from wrong. He states, “The Washington law, because it’s built on fear of the unknown and lack of communication, fails to recognize the freedom of speech rights. ” The author uses logos by referring to people’s values of their rights. The author opens the first paragraph with a question, “What’s 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 aren’t harming children; it’s 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 can’t 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 Washington’s 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 it’s 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 ability to stand up against such laws.
The author’s 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 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 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 aren’t able to enjoy their “innocent” games. The audience’s emotions are being involved in this paragraph with the use of pathos. The author’s 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, 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 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 aren’t 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 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 portrayed or killed, such as in numerous movies such as, “Robin Hood” and “Lethal Weapon”. Why aren’t 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 children’s 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 logos 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. It’s 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 aren’t 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 possibly accept his belief, that passing the Washington law is a mistake.
He’s 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 didn’t 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 author’s overall argument was persuading even though he didn’t include a proposed solution.