In these debates so far none of them have offered any rational or science based justification for their position beyond "it should be banned". The only argument offered was an argument not based on the latest studies which seem to show that violent video games have no lasting impact on empathy.
Life desensitizes people more than violent video games. It's a violent world that a lot of us have to live in and grow up in. There are wars going on, there are people getting shot and killed left and right, yet violent video games are blamed? Couldn't we just as easily blame politics?
Yeah, it's almost as if they aren't the complete drooling, brainwashed morons the pro-censorship liars think they are.
It is fine if a person comes out and says they support censorship and then take a logically consistent position on that. A person who supports censorship all the way will support regulating all human thought once the technology connects us to a degree where thoughts can be monitored and policed. Because if you can ban violent video games even when there are no victims and no scientific evidence showing anyone is harmed, then you can ban anything. If you can ban anything by the argument that it corrupts the mind then you can ban thoughts because if a person has violent thoughts wouldn't this also desensitize them over time and cause them to become a violent person?
Consider that with video games we are discussing what goes on in the brains of the players and people are discussing creating policies to police the mind.
"A person who supports censorship all the way will support regulating all human thought once the technology connects us to a degree where thoughts can be monitored and policed."
This is exactly why this is a topic I can get more emphatic about than I intend to. I see this as a literal crime against humanity and I would place the magnitude of its sinister-ity (should be a word) at potentially comparable to genocide.