If you think the birds are angry, wait til you hear the anti-dog-fighting activists.
We’re just keeping our finger crossed that Michael Vick doesn’t have this app on his phone.
“Dog Wars,” a new video game available free of charge on the Android smart phone market. The game allows players to choose, feed, train and fight virtual dogs against the dogs of other players. Predictably, animal rights, anti-dog fighting groups and social critics want the app dropped.
“Dog Wars” may be in poor taste, but it’s not unethical. Guiding pixels shaped as dogs in tiny phone screen-size battles has no more to do with cruelty to animals than biting the head off of a chocolate Easter Bunny or eating animal crackers. Critics are saying that the game teaches people how to prepare real dogs for real fights? Right…and “Risk” teaches people how to take over the world.
This is the “Ick factor” at work—when something that seems strange, unpleasant or contrary to normal behavior is mislabeled as unethical. Yes, it’s an especially sick idea for a video game, but if “The Godfather” game isn’t the equivalent of putting real horse heads in people’s beds, and it isn’t, playing “Dog Wars” doesn’t mean that a player is going to become quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles. It’s “Ick,” not Vick.
“Dog Wars” maker Kage Games says on its website: “We do not condone violence toward animals or humans and we are confident in humankind’s ability to distinguish between a game and the consequences of real life.” I don’t like these people much, and neither does the Jack Russell sitting here on my desk as I write this. But their position is air-tight, and so is the “Angry Birds” analogy they toss back at critics. They tell negative commenters on their site to “just go slingshot some virtual birds to kill some virtual pigs.” Attempts to distinguish the silly fad bird game from the nasty dog game have all failed. It’s a video game, that’s all; one that pits dogs against each other instead of the more usual human vs. human theme. Yes, ick.
But not unethical
UPDATE: Well, THAT was fast! Google pulled the app before the cyber-ink was dry on the post. I’m not surprised, and I won’t miss it, since I would rather pull out my eyelashes than play such a game. It doesn’t mean the game was unethical, of course; just the Google didn’t think such a tasteless game was worth taking a stand on. People would keep saying that the app encourages animal cruelty, just like their grandparents used to say that Popeye cartoons made kids into bullies. Both claims are nonsense.
I do miss Popeye.
Ethics Alarms 
I disagree. Things like this application are unethical because they have real world consequences.
Let me explain: http://bslnews.org/2011/04/26/the-war-against-dog-wars-the-fight-against-the-android-application-goes-viral/
But your article does not prove or show that there are real world consequences or likely to be any. I’m pro-pit bull, but a phone app seems to me to be such a weak—and speculative– factor in the demonization of the breed that calling it unethical is an unjustified stretch. What person likely to become an anti-pit bull zealot will play a dog-fighting video game? The quote you cite from the player cuts the other way…if someone can get the same “rush’ from fighting dog-shaped pixels as from fighting real dogs, which is he likely to to do—the version that’s legal, non-harmful and free, or the one that’s expensive, cruel and illegal?
Show me real consequences causing harm to any real animal, and I’ll retract my opinion. I don’t see it.
My article proves that there are real-world consequences for poisonous language and breedist stereotypes used against this type of dog.
Because you choose to stubbornly stand by your knee-jerk response and ridiculous chocolate bunny example doesn’t make my very valid points any less valid.
Chill. Your article is supposed to be about the game, not language and stereotypes. Do you think stereotypes of people in games should be banned too? Are you equally bothered by the stereotype bull dogs in Chuck Jones cartoons? Do they cause hatred of real breeds, do you think? Please.
My response isn’t “knee jerk”…it’s analytical. Your response is emotional. I gave you a chance to say something substantive: show me how the game will or has hurt anyone or anything not composed of pixels. You changed the subject. I’m open-minded on this issue as with others; I have no stake in being “right.” But I don’t have to change my opinion just because you really think I should. Give me a decent argument. I haven’t seen one yet, just convenient and unsupported assumptions.
“Your article is supposed to be about the game, not language and stereotypes.”
But you’re not understanding the most basic fact: the game perpetuates this language and the stereotypes of pit bulls as vicious killing machines. This has real-world consequences as public perception of these dogs is poisoned, breed specific legislation springs from this ridiculous fear, and dogs die as a result.
I would suggest you don’t try to tell me what my article, where the very basic premise escapes your comprehension, is “supposed to be about.” That’s almost as dumb as saying that handing impressionable young people a hateful and breedist how-to-guide for dogfighting is the same as eating a chocolate bunny.
You’re one hell of a debater, Matt—disagreeing with your facile assumptions is automatically dumb. The bias against pit bulls is based on real world attacks, not pixel violence, and pitbulls are used in dogfighting more than other breeds…how is the game perpetrating a stereotype? Your heart’s in the right place; it’s your head that’s the problem. That and your integrity—again, you haven’t answered my questions, because they expose the lack of substance in your article.
I wrote a response to your article—which was technically spam, by the way—that was respectful but critical, and you have responded with nothing but the same unsupported assertions and insults. That’s not proper conduct here, and you’re not getting another comment by me that insults the host.
I’m going to bite the head off a chocolate pit-bull now. Yum!
Very clever.
The problem here is that you just don’t know what you’re talking about. You think you have the whole pit bull stereotype issue figured out.
Too much institutional education, too little real-world street smarts. But go ahead and ban my comment, you naive jack booted ignoramus.
Don’t forget Wil’s Law.
I forgot it already.
Wil’s Law:
“Wil Wheaton says, ‘Don’t be a dick.’ “
No, I think I’ll leave your comment; it speaks volumes.
War games perpetuate that stereotype that killing people is fun. Roadrunner cartoons perpetuate the belief that violence is temporary and desnsitize us to the serious results of hitting people with large objects.
Is GTA a ‘how to’ guide for running drugs and treating women poorly? Should books explaining how dog fighting works (or say, how to support liberal causes) be banned?
While Jack may not know what you intended when you wrote your article, he explained what you actually said very well. Don’t blame the messenger.
The most important part to understand about the release of this app is the timing. Is it mere coincidence that right now there is a very wealthy force lobbying behind slaughtering specific breeds of dog based on mere personal opinion of a few? These same dog breeds are those commonly used by the unscrupulous to engage in illegal, twisted and cruel dog fighting competitions. Whether this app was purposefully released to put more attention on the negative use of the breeds or not is irrelevant to the fact that either way the app will indeed encourage these breeds to be viewed in a more negative light
In spite of the large number of Star Wars-related video games that I’ve played over the years, none of them have taught me how to shoot real lightning from my real fingertips in real life. 😦
–Dwayne
This app.will be terminated in less than 1 month..
You were way off—apparently they already pulled it. Which has nothing to do with whether it is actually unethical or not, of course.
This is a senseless and cruel app……virtual or not, the use of this will bring these acts into reality at an alarming rate….Mark my Words on this….
Dog-Fighting is already out of control…happening in backyards, warehouses and alleys just around the corner from us all and this app. is a way to condone these horrific acts while bringing into play at the same time….
If you cannot see this, then you see nothing and the guilt lies upon you as well as the actual abusers…..
While defending this app. you are an aid in building the playground of death…teaching our children that cruelty is accepted….
You are as Guilty as the actual abusers…..
=
This is a senseless and cruel app……
Senseless as most videogames; clearly not cruel, as one can’t be cruel to electrons.
virtual or not, the use of this will bring these acts into reality at an alarming rate….Mark my Words on this….
I’ll mark them. I just don’t believe them.
Dog-Fighting is already out of control…happening in backyards, warehouses and alleys just around the corner from us all and this app. is a way to condone these horrific acts while bringing into play at the same time….
It doesn’t condone anything. It’s a game.
If you cannot see this, then you see nothing and the guilt lies upon you as well as the actual abusers…..
Now there’s a fair argument! Two imaginary links for the price of one.
While defending this app. you are an aid in building the playground of death…teaching our children that cruelty is accepted….
Why does your child have an Android phone? This isn’t a kid’s game.
You are as Guilty as the actual abusers…..
Remind me to send you the definition of “guilty” and “actual.”
Morally dubious Dog Wars game pulled from Android Market
Yanked the wrong chain
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Android/Android+Market/news.asp?c=29431
I love the phrase “Morally dubious” — I own a female pitbull
Not to split hairs, but the game can be morally dubious–what occurs IN the game are simulated unethical acts—without the game being itself unethical. If you owned a bird, would that make “Angry Birds” morally dubious?
Imagine a game called “Race Wars” – and there have been games with that theme. Obviously, no one is really getting abused while playing that game, but it would to popularize racist notions and encourage racist behavior. If in that game it used racial stereotypes that have real world consequences of oppression, you would take it very seriously.
In the real world, dog fighting and fatal breed discrimination laws are very common. This is something that portrays certain breeds as fighting breeds which underlines the already rampant notions that those breeds are dangerous and should be put down. Cops are killing these breeds in the streets everyday without consequences.
This is very real and it is different from games that are violent in ways that are uncommon and nonracial/breed specific, like putting a horse head in someone’s bed in the Godfather Game.
Nope. Thoughts are not unethical; fantasy is not unethical. Actual conduct that has consequences is unethical. If anyone could show me how the game really does anything tangible, I’d change my opinion. There is no evidence of this at all. I don’t like the game; I don’t like “Saw” either. But they are both for entertaining people entertained by this sort of thing. I see absolutely no way a video game will have impact on pitbull legislation one way or the other.
So, if the game showed consequences, it would be worse? Ugh.
Did I say that? I meant to say that if it could be shown that playing the game turned people into abusers, that would be different. I don’t think what the game shows has any significance to the issue at all.
I was replying to “Das Boot”. Specifically, this statement:
” If in that game it used racial stereotypes that have real world consequences of oppression, you would take it very seriously.”
I agree with you in general, but I get annoyed when people think that something is worse because the consequences of the actions are shown. Normally, accurately showing consequences of behaviors can take something from neutral to a new positive.
You are correct, sir!
Everybody knows PIT BULLS are used for DOG FIGHTING. That’s why they call them “pit bulls”. Get a reality check!
Point?
There is, sadly, a multitude of games released in other countries (eh, whatever, it’s Japan) that are thinly-constructed scenarios to engage in simulated rape. Are these also ethical? I heard that Japan’s rape rate is much lower than America’s. (though this might have changed)
That’s pornography, as far as I can tell. No actresses were harmed in the making of this videogame. What’s unethical about it? (Ick)
No actresses were harmed? Aw, man. I just can’t get into it now.
Also, in case you were wondering, Japan is still a strong contender for having the lowest (reported) rape rates in the West; it’s an orderly society, despite the rape-simulators and violent video games (including ones where you can play as Yakuza), leading some credence to the idea that interactive media can be used as a mental punching bag / stress ball.
I wish that world and people would be so good and straight forward, unfortunately are not…. there is clear link between growing violence within society and video, computer games and tv….. for most of us app or games like it will not make any difference, we are able to see difference between virtual and real world, but always, more and more in last year, people, specially young, getting confuse and wrong idea and they do trying apply what they learn in virtual world to reality….. I think there is enough bad examples in past….. apart of that….. the subject of application is pretty hot in last months and creator really choose wrong….. pit bulls and fights are present in each media and again, unfortunately is not bringing only good results, but increasing of followers and bad people, who trying to see if they can do same like Vick, for example…… we all have to be more careful with our choices because more and more issues starting to be sensitive and if we have power to use media for anything, let use it for good! they did to much bad up till now……..
I parsed this writing so you don’t have to:
there is clear link between growing violence within society and video, computer games and tv
No, actually there isn’t any shown link. Just lots of people who assume there is one.
for most of us app or games like it will not make any difference, we are able to see difference between virtual and real world, but always, more and more in last year, people, specially young, getting confuse and wrong idea and they do trying apply what they learn in virtual world to reality
Citation needed. Confusion between the virtual world and reality is not a problem that’s increasing.
I think there is enough bad examples in past…..
bad examples of what? People confusing video games and reality? Citation needed.
the subject of application is pretty hot in last months and creator really choose wrong…..
Why would the subject being timely make it worse? It’s not even timely. What dog fighting stories have come up since Vick?
pit bulls and fights are present in each media and again, unfortunately is not bringing only good results, but increasing of followers and bad people, who trying to see if they can do same like Vick, for example……
Translation: Because bad could possibly occur, no one should ever talk about anything.
…… we all have to be more careful with our choices because more and more issues starting to be sensitive and if we have power to use media for anything, let use it for good! they did to much bad up till now……..
Translation: because people don’t like something, we can’t discuss it.
Why is it so difficult to figure out where to draw the line…. Anything that explicitly or implicitly promotes CRUELTY to animals or humans for that matter goes against all that common sense is about – not to mention its negative effect upon a suggestible young mind.
I don’t accept your premise. Games promote fantasy. Paintball doesn’t promote shooting people. Risk doesn’t promote real war. I’ve shot metal ducks in a shooting gallery, and never considered shooting one for real.
The easy line is between real and not real. Any other line is hysterical.
Fantasizing about cruelty ? ..i don’t find it funny/educational…
Well, that’s your taste. I’m not a particularly big fan of violent hack-and-slash games, but I understand that most people who play those games are (relatively) well-adjusted individuals who would be disgusted at anyone who tried to cut up actual people. I’ve gone on rampages when playing a friend’s copy of GTA, but I also tend to prefer the “nice guy” route when playing role-playing games.
Who said it was funny or educational? On the other hand, its not your fantasy, or mine.
Great logic. You realize the Bible fits squarely within the category of “explicitly promoting cruelty to humans,” right?
We came a long way since the “Bible”… a couple of thousand yrs… expecting a more refined “common sense “ from the modern man perhaps, wouldn’t you say?
Of course we have more common sense…at least some of us do. We know what’s right and wrong. There is nothing wrong with providing or playing a game about dog fighting.
I disagree completely. There is enough animal abuse in this world. As an animal advocate, the videos I receive would make you cry. Kids are impressionable. I was. I assume you are an adult. Be a good example for children.
Hey what about a game that has a hero that goes around saving dogs from fighting rings? Wouldnt that be a better idea?
There is no animal abuse in the game, you know.
Sure it would be a better idea. But somebody has to want to play it.
Heh, there are already a lot of video games that at least try to get the player to care about their animals and treat them well (examples including Nintendogs and the supernaturally-intelligent knife-wielding dog that you can help care for in Persona 3 Portable). There’s also a game actually called “Doctor Fizzwizzle’s Animal Rescue”.
There also enough religion in this world. As an atheist, the things religious people have said would make you cry. Kids are impressionable. I was. I assume you are an adult. Be a good example for the children. [Ergo, anything that shows religion should be banned and your support for it is HARMING OUR CHILDREN!]
Hey, what about a book that has a hero that goes around saving people from religion? Wouldn’t that be a better idea than any Christian games?
While I am 100% against religion, if I ever use an argument this illogical and unethical, please call me out on it so I can hit myself in the face with a 2×4.
Saw this video last weekend and thought of you, tgt…
if it’s not unethical and it’s all about fantasy role playing, then they should make a pedophilia app. 10 pts for oral copulation, 25 for sodomy. sound good?
I’m sure it sounds good to somebody. By what logic does someone who is offended by a game and thus would never use or play it get to assert that someone who isn’t offended by the game is wrong to play it, and that the game-maker who gives him the opportunity is wrong to do so?
Haha, I take it you’ve never seen some of the crazy stuff that comes from Japan (which is one of the world’s most orderly nations), have you?
The most important part to understand about the release of this app is the timing. Is it mere coincidence that right now there is a very wealthy force lobbying behind slaughtering specific breeds of dog based on mere personal opinion of a few? These same dog breeds are those commonly used by the unscrupulous to engage in illegal, twisted and cruel dog fighting competitions. Whether this app was purposefully released to put more attention on the negative use of the breeds or not is irrelevant to the fact that either way the app will indeed encourage these breeds to be viewed in a more negative light (let alone become more prone to exploitation after young people become encouraged with the idea of dog-fighting through this game). The idea of “Angry Birds” is just fun, as it has no real world effect. Birds are not currently in danger of being banned or euthanized by wealthy and megalomaniacal special interest groups. Now on the other hand, a game about “cock fighting” showing roosters being used in matches people bet on would also be a very dangerous and insane app that should be stopped as well. There comes a time when one must understand good judgement. There are certain things that just should not be encouraged, and back-alley pit-fighting crime scenarios that encourage the murder of innocent creatures should NOT be encouraged and therefore glorified through such nonsense. People like to play the bad guy, or shoot up enemies, but there must be a line drawn when it reaches this level of what could only be described as evil. I mean, what will be next? A game where you are a pimp who rapes women and beats them into line to control them? Perhaps a slave trader who visits different nations and sells people into slavery and murders the ones who aren’t strong enough? Perhaps a pedophilia or sex trafficking game where you get to be a cath… Well, I’m sure you get my point. There are certain levels of despicable behavior that tread into a different arena of life that should be kept off limits for the general public. And this apps biggest problem is it’s TIMING. That alone places it in the realm of doing some serious harm to dog breeds that everyone who has ever owned one can tell you are excellent dogs. However there are many scumbags who purposefully use their dogs as killing machines thinking it makes them tough or safe (or who involve them in dog fighting). The reality is that you do not kill a breed of dog because of it’s use in crime circles, you put the owners off limits from ownership if they are abusive or make an uncontrollable killer of their animal repeatedly. Simple as that. This app will only complicate matters right now, plain and simple.
I doubt it.
just a little heads up for you it is immposible for a human to “murder” something that is not human.
While murder is a loaded term being improperly used here), I think the vernacular of murder could at times include animals. If you came to my house and strangled my cat, I’d call you a murderer.
I believe video games have real world consequences. One of the two teens in the Columbine shooting modified the Doom game they were playing so that it would only have two shooters, with unlimited guns and ammo and victims that could not, would not, fight back.
We have all read the paintball horror stories in the news, kids that use paintball guns to terrorize unsuspecting people, then some of their victims using real guns to shoot back and harm the paintballers.
For you to ask for someone to show you where this game has caused harm or where it is unethical is just ridiculous. It is too new on the market for one thing (thus making your argument a logical fallacy)and you are right, a game in itself, cannot be unethical. Only the negative use that comes from it.
For the creators to capitalize on such brutal animal slaughter is unethical to be sure. To allow your children to play could be construed as immoral as well.
Thank God we live in a free democracy and people like me can write letters, send emails and just all around bitch until crap like this gets pulled. Because the fact remains, we are better than this. We should ourselves, and our children aspire to more.
Well, I’m done arguing semantics, off to try and do something positive in my ‘hood. Peace
I believe video games have real world consequences. One of the two teens in the Columbine shooting modified the Doom game they were playing so that it would only have two shooters, with unlimited guns and ammo and victims that could not, would not, fight back.
So Doom turned Eric into a psychopath, not psychopathic Eric modified Doom. Got it. I can play Doom on invincible mode, too, does that mean I’m more likely to shoot up people? No.
We have all read the paintball horror stories in the news, kids that use paintball guns to terrorize unsuspecting people, then some of their victims using real guns to shoot back and harm the paintballers.
What does that have to do with video games.
For you to ask for someone to show you where this game has caused harm or where it is unethical is just ridiculous.
So unsubstantiated allegations must be bowed to.
It is too new on the market for one thing (thus making your argument a logical fallacy)
Logical fallacy. I don’t think that term means what you think it means.
and you are right, a game in itself, cannot be unethical. Only the negative use that comes from it.
Ban The Origin of the Species! it isn’t unethical, but people can use it to behave inethicially.
For the creators to capitalize on such brutal animal slaughter is unethical to be sure.
I don’t see at as any more immoral than GTA, Street Fighter, or Super Mario Bros. (Do you know how many innocent bystanders I killed in that game? They’re just walking back and forth, minding their own business, and I would shoot fire at them.)
To allow your children to play could be construed as immoral as well.
No one is saying it should be played by kids.
Thank God we live in a free democracy and people like me can write letters, send emails and just all around bitch until crap like this gets pulled.
Yes, you have the complete right to make a big stink about how you do not like this game, just like they have the same right to make this game, and we have the right to say your position is ridiculous. America. Fuck Yeah!
Because the fact remains, we are better than this. We should ourselves, and our children aspire to more.
If you don’t like it, don’t play it. Problem solved.
Well, I’m done arguing semantics, off to try and do something positive in my ‘hood. Peace
You aren’t arguing semantics. You are arguing values and likely effects. We all agree on the words we’re using, right?
The Columbine shooting did NOT happen over a video game, it happened because the kids involved were being instructed on doing such by some “cult” of sorts that is still in question to this day. Whether or not there was federal involvement such as with the underwear bomber being helped onto the plane by the state department is still under investigation to this day. So in short, the kids at Columbine were directed by real life individuals who trained them to do such, not video games.
Cult? No. It was a Sociopath and his friend. End of story. Though your conspiracy theory is entertaining rubbish.
Jessica. Come on. The Columbine shooters modified Doom because they were sick and getting ready to shoot up the school. Nobody, but nobody, has suggested seriously that the video game played any part in their attack. Similarly, the kids that actually play paint ball are not the ones who use the weapons outside the game.
Nor has anyone suggested that the dog fighting app is for kids. Sure, people like you will try to censor words, ideas, games and fantasies that have caused no harm because these things upset you, and you feel nobody else should be free to do what you wouldn’t approve of. I don’t think it’s anything to be proud of: it is in the grand tradition of the parents who burned Elvis records in the 50’s—the devil’s music, you know. They just knew that it would drive the kids insane. “Exploit” is such a useful word—I use it myself, probably too much. Makers of war video games “exploit” the tragedies of WW II and Vietnam. Mario Puzo “exploited’ mafia violence; Saul Bellow “exploited” the Holocaust. Nothing wrong with any of those.
I love how the statement that a phone app that isn’t aimed at children isn’t unethical gets twisted into an assertion that children shouldn’t “aspire to more.” Why don’t you just make up your own article and criticize that?
THIS GAME is WRONG!!! Bottomline, you can debate from here to the Moon and 1 Billion Hours, it still will not make it right. Wrong is wrong and rightous is rightous. Read more PROOF! here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8449-violent-video-games-alter-brains-response-to-violence.html,
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2005-2009/05GA2.pdf,
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/kooijmans.html,
Well, you are somewhat correct in that the act of attacking and fighting humanoid or other forms in video games has been shown to desensitize the mind to the act in real life. Hence the documentaries about modern soldiers killing more readily and referring to it as the video game generation or “generation kill”…
Does this mean Pokemon (a hyper-popular game in which fictional monsters are made to fight each other) is bad for our kids too? Oh noes, I’m going to grow up to be Vick because I’ve been playing it since I was seven. Wait, Vick is rich.
Hmm…
Chase, I thought of Pokemon too. It is just a cute version of dog-fighting. If Pokemon monsters really existed, would the games and cartoons be more unethical than they are now? Why would they be?
There is a massive difference between make-believe monsters and a supposed ethical outcome for their battles than their is encouraging back-alley real life corruption that actually goes on in our cities every day (illegally of course) – with no ethical conclusion or outcome. Pokemon creatures are NOT real and people do not ACTUALLY battle pokemon monsters, nor do they have the choice to other than on their video game systems. So there is a huge difference between the two actually. One glorifies a real life debauchery and the other is just make-believe.
Funnily enough, the most recent Pokemon game actually explores the morality of, well, catching Pokemon and making them fight; basically, the more salient point is that even as people are able to draw connections to the real world from video games,they are fully capable of recognizing that video game ethics are not real world ethics.
The other thing to note is that everybody older than 13 probably already knows that dog-fighting exists and has probably already formed an opinion on it; while video games may desensitize people, there’s not really much evidence that they actually change people’s INTELLECTUAL opinions on issues like dog fighting. I may be a little more aggressive after playing as an amoral, money-first mercenary or an psycho, bloody-minded gangster, but it doesn’t make me actually believe that private military contractors and street gangs should have free reign. Should we ban the game Pandemic because it’s about designing a micro-organism capable of infecting the entire world, at a time where there are still genuine worries about biological terrorism, or the Total War series because it gives you the often-profitable options to massacre prisoners and civilians and make your nation religiously intolerant, issues that still effect us now?
One glorifies a real life debauchery and the other is just make-believe
I’m confused. Are you saying that in a dog fighting game, there are dogs actually fighting? Maybe I don’t know what make-believe means.
Pin the Tail on the Donkey encourages animal abuse of donkeys by convincing little kids to slash the tail off the donkey and then try to reattach it using a sharp pin. I’m appalled and want that game removed from existence.
Mad Donkey
But seriously, if you can’t even find, in history, someone trying to pin an actual tail on to an actual donkey…
Wait—you mean we weren’t supposed to use a real donkey????
I agree. This game is not unethical. But just like rascism in cartoons did not force people to be rascist it still supported unethical ideas. So I think games and movies that portray animal abuse as cool sends the wrong message.
That presumes that there IS a message, intended of otherwise. I see no reason to assume that the game is sending a message the real dog-fighting is cool, any more than war video games suggest that war is cool.
Heck, most of my friends who play modern military games like Call of Duty actually believe that the US should scale down its overall foreign military involvement.
It is always important to remember however that going to war is viewed as an ethical and viable option in life when the necessity arises to use force (at least that is the “idea”, though today naturally that is not the case – but all the same) – whereas “dog fighting” is a “seedy” back-alley scumbag practice – like rape and sex trafficking. That is important to understand.
Actually, in a lot of war games, you’re able (and occasionally encouraged) to commit acts that would be labeled as war crimes in real life (not to mention all those games that allow you to kill American soldiers in multiplayer). Also, I meant that my friends can enjoy a game about the US intervening in Mexico/the Middle East/etc., while still opposing involvement if an incident happened in real life that mirrored that of the game.
Also, I take it that you’ve never heard of games like Grand Theft Auto (kidding of course), or some of the rape simulations released in Japan (which is not a rape-happy country by any measure)?
Apologies for not really offering too many salient points, but really, there’s not overly conclusive evidence that previously released violent games have done anything other than contribute a bit to desensitization towards gruesome images (which would happen if one was a veteran paramedic as well), or to temporary increases in levels of aggression (which may nothing more than simply the adrenaline that would also spike in activities like sports or sex). Otherwise, studies have only at best established a correlation between violent games and aggressive behavior, not causation. (Note again that there’s no evidence that video games actually are able to make people change their intellectual/moral stance on issues).
Besides, if I read some of the arguments proffered on this correctly, I assume you guys would also ban stuff like Catcher in the Rye, American Psycho, and A Clockwork Orange (not to mention any form of argumentative political-minded media) because some crazies who suck at interpretation and can’t differentiate reality from fantasy have claimed that the material justified their violent acts.
And, as you know, at one time they did try to ban these.
I have literally NEVER driven a car through a small building and into a river at high speed, expecting it to convert into a speedboat.
This despite the fact that I own a full-size Spy Hunter arcade game.
–Dwayne
P.S. Now maybe if I had the Peter Gunn theme were playing on the car stereo and a helicopter were dropping bombs on the road in front of me . . . hmm . . . [scratching chin thoughtfully] . . . nope, pretty sure I still wouldn’t try that maneuver.
COME ON!! it is ethical because everyone knows dogs like pit bulls are dangerous! they didnt make the game about chiwhawas did they!!! the game warns kids because pit bulls all they do is want to fight!!!! there is a reson poeple ban this dogs because they like killing and are like a loaded gun! good article – IT IS JUST A GAME PPL!
Except that you are more likely to be bitten by a chihuahua than a pit bull, unless the pit bull was abused. Fighting pit bull are dangerous, just as a fighting Golden would be dangerous. The “loaded gun” analogy is only valid if the dog has been “loaded” by a human–the pit bull is one of the best, loyal, trustworthy dog breeds there is.