E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Sunday, October 21, 2012

News Flash: Video Games are not real

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 11:30 AM (#)

Note: I originally wrote this on March 25, 2009. I am re-posting because the fools at PETA are at it again, whining about video games where no animals are actually harmed. More on that idiocy in a few days.

Wolves and dogs have been a common enemy in video games for more than 20 years. In Altered Beast for the Sega Genesis, the player obtains power ups by killing dogs and picking up the orbs they leave behind. Wolves are a common enemy in role playing games such as the Final Fantasy and Dragonquest series. Dogs are far from the only animals that gamers have faced over the years, as players kill turtles, rhinos and moles in the Super Mario Brothers series. The list goes on and on, not to mention all of the humans players kill (or defeat) in various games.

Someone forgot to tell the extremists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who are in a tizzy because of the realistic killing of dogs in the latest Call of Duty first-person shooter. PETA sent the game's publishers a "care package" with the hope that "perhaps the next Call of Duty game will have you unlock achievements for petting the dogs you encounter and going on walks or playing Frisbee with them." No word on whether these proposed scenes will take place in a marijuana-induced haze complete with visions from the earth goddess Gaia.

Of course, the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this statement is obvious to anyone who is at all informed about PETA, since one of PETA's long term goals is to eliminate pet ownership. PETA's Ingrid Newkirk said "Pet ownership is slavery. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or be entertained by." Newkirk also said that "pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."

I guess People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has morphed into People for the Ethical Treatment of Pixels. After all, no animals are actually harmed in Call of Duty, just as no humans are actually harmed despite the huge number of human characters the player is required to kill as he progresses through this game or similar first person shooters. News flash for PETA: video games are not real. Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which howled in protest over the fact that players of the Grand Theft Auto sequel released last year could get their character drunk and then attempt to drive, might want to learn the same lesson.

PETA's idiotic letter is nothing more than an attention-grabbing LOOK AT ME moment that does absolutely nothing for animal "rights" or animal welfare. This circus distracts from real animal cruelty by whining about irrelevancies like a video game and promoting this circus-like atmosphere. This is why I say PETA is no different from the Westboro Baptist "Church" and that Ingrid Newkirk = Fred Phelps. The WBC pickets funerals because they're attention whores. PETA is exactly the same.

PETA espouses an extremist, radical ideology that I am never going to agree with, especially as a cancer survivor who is alive today because of biomedical research. In cases where they are reasonable - such as campaigns against dog fighting and inhumane conditions for breeding pets - they could garner some support even among those who disagree with them on the more extreme views the organization holds. But PETA doesn't care about animal rights or animal welfare. It's all about getting as much attention as possible.

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.