Clinton vs. grand theft auto

The author is a business man defending his product against the poilitician who wants to strengthen the rating which would bring down the sales, decreasing the profit for him. So of course he would take a stance against the critiques Hillary Clinton has for grand theft auto where he states that she overlooks the game noticing only the terrible things and not the good side. Although it may need a stronger rating, perhaps mature, she fails to notice that there is no real evidence that games that have stealing, or killing has any effect on the gamers or real crime, but in the last year or so crime has decreased. He supports his product by countering her assumptions by even mentioning that in truth the game is a healthy let out for the gamers to experience all of this in the game, to be sastified and not do in reality.

Letter to Clinton-Tim Fisher

The letter written to senator Clinton was way off base, and also poorly written. I originally agreed with Johnson's assesment that the senator was incorrect in researching the effects of video game violence affecting young children. However, he then began to randomly throw out ideas into his letter, some of which he never even concluded. For instance, he begins discussing how football helps foster violence in children. I didn't agree with this assesment, but I would have been interested in hearing his points. He never finished these points though, and it greatly took away from any possible influence this letter would have had on anyone. All in all, this was a very poorly written letter that completely misses the boat.

Johnson has a lot of problems with what Senator Clinton had to say. I believed his strongest arguement against her was the fact that violence actually has gone down since Grand Theft Auto has come out. As strange as that might be, maybe the fact that people can do harm in a video game actually helps society. He also brings up a point about High School Football. It is something many many kids are involved in, and he make a valid point at how kids are taught to somewhat hurt the other kid on the other team. Th points definately make you think.

Hillary Vs. GTA

Johnson finds many things wrong with Senator Clinton's argument for controlling video games. He mentions that the video games give the minds of the kids playing them more of a "work out". He says that it is better to think about managing a team in the madden video game than to sit on the couch and cheer for a team. He also states that crime rates have dropped since that games have arrived on the shelves. Finally, he mentions the fact that since "Grand Theft Auto" has come out there has been an extreme fall in crime rates.

Hillary Vs. Grand Theft Auto....hmmm

In reading this article, my main conscern is the problem that comes from parents. Johnson points out very well that the sex in the game should give it a mature rating, and that should be the end of it. After pointing out many other games that are also violent or sexual, Johnson gets his point across by showing how these games may actually benefit our society. The fact that the violence that can be taken out during video games actually seems to be pretty accurate. Seeing as how i play certain games when im very angry and wish to vent some of that anger towards something that wont hurt anyone.

Another part of the letter that stands out to me againts Sen. Clinton's point is dervived from the little knowledge that parents have about the games that THEY are buying for their kids. How can a parent get angry at a game company when it was their own negligence that caused the violence to be displayed. I do think that at the end of this letter he should leave out the part he agrees with, because it takes away for the focus he had at the beginning of the paper.

-matt

Hilary vs. Grand Theft Auto

I think that this article by Johnson as a rebuttal to the Clinton Administration's 90 million dollar study on the effects that video games have on children and the recent stand that Clinton took against the game Grand Theft Auto. I don't remember this situation but I can infer that this project is against video games and that Clinton must have made some stand saying that Grand Theft Auto was distructive to young minds. I think Johnson is telling Clinton that it is stupid to look at something like a violent video game and to blindly look at the bad things it causes without considering any possible good things. Clinton has not considered that the game allows kids to explore the thrill of stealing cars without actually stealing one. Instead Clinton sees the game as teaching kids it is fun and ok to steal. The interesting fact are, however, that since the games release, the crime rate for grand theft auto has decreased. Clinton, of course, has not considered this.

Johnson v. Hillary

Johnson's argument was that video games are actually a good part of children's lives. He feels that Hillary's argument is wrong because it is only focusing on one video game and the violence that it involved with it. Johnson opposes what Hillary is saying by providing facts and statics of way he feels that video games are good for the development of children and teenagers. he also states the fact that today's video games have just replaced the games of past generations. Johnson is giving all possible reason for his argument and justifying playing video games.