ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:22 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Lawmakers Take Aim At Virtual Violence
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 2:54 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: New York City
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/ ... index.html

Quote:
Lawmakers take aim at virtual violence

Monday, July 5, 2004 Posted: 10:45 AM EDT (1445 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- In video games these days, you can strangle someone with a garrote ("Manhunt"), pop off an enemy's head in a shower of gore with a sniper shot ("Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy"), and direct a teenage girl to shotgun a demon dog ("Silent Hill 3").

Not to mention beat up prostitutes, run down pedestrians, bathe in the blood of your enemies and curse like a lobster boat captain who's stubbed his toe.

The video game industry seems to delight in pushing the envelope -- and the bounds of good taste -- with ever-gorier content. That has put it under renewed attack from legislators and activists who claim some titles must be kept out of kids' hands, though courts have repeatedly granted games First Amendment protections.

The opponents cite new research that they say suggests strong links between violent games and aggressive behavior. They are disturbed by games' cultural ubiquity and the always-improving technology that makes virtual gore more realistic than ever.

"Pediatricians and psychologists have been warning us that violent video games are harmful to children," said Mary Lou Dickerson, a Democratic legislator in Washington state who wrote a law now being challenged in federal court -- banning the sale of some violent games to kids. "I'm optimistic that the courts will heed their warnings."
Video game laws

Lawmakers in at least seven states proposed bills during the most recent legislative session that would restrict the sale of games, part of a wave that began when the 1999 Columbine High School shootings sparked an outcry over games and violence. None of the measures that passed have survived legal challenge.

The game industry says legislating ultra-violent games out of the hands of children would deal a severe blow to free speech. Game companies point to the industry-imposed ratings system that gives detailed descriptions of violence in a game and labels some titles as "mature" or "adults only."

"Does it make any rational sense to you that we're going to pass a law someplace that says we're not going to prevent minors from buying 'Passion of the Christ' or 'Kill Bill' or 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' in a local store but you can't buy 'Resident Evil?"' said Douglas Lowenstein, president of the Entertainment Software Association, referring to three violent movies and a popular horror-action game.

The debate reflects a divide in the way people perceive games. Are games harmless, perhaps even cathartic, as many people who grew up playing them believe? Or are they teaching kids to be more aggressive, and in extreme cases, to kill?

To game opponents -- many of whom admit they don't play video games -- it's the latter. They point to new studies that purport to show a stronger link between violent games and aggressive behavior than ever.

"On average, there is a significant tendency for the studies to yield an increase in aggression by those who have played the violent games," said Craig Anderson, an Iowa State University professor and leading researcher on the effects of media violence.

There is also the inescapable fact that the military uses video games to train its soldiers. A 2003 University of Rochester study found that young adults who played a lot of fast-paced video games showed better visual skills than those who did not.

Author Evan Wright ponders the effects of video games on U.S. soldiers in the current Iraq war in his new book "Generation Kill." In an endorsement that "Grand Theft Auto" creator Rockstar Games would probably rather not get, he quotes one U.S. soldier as saying an ambush felt just like playing the game.

"It felt like I was living it when I seen the flames coming out of windows, the blown-up car in the street, guys crawling around shooting at us," the soldier says.
Attack of the sequels

The next 12 months could see a flurry of new scrutiny of violent games because three controversial franchises are due to release sequels. They include "Doom," notorious as a favorite of the Columbine killers; "Mortal Kombat," with its calls for a player to "finish" opponents in myriad gruesome ways; and "Grand Theft Auto," which exhorted players in its latest iteration to start a Cuban-Haitian race war.

Meanwhile, we're in the midst of a gaming explosion. Deloitte & Touche predicts the worldwide number of "game compliant devices" other than PCs -- mobile phones, consoles, and handheld computers, for example -- will see a six-fold rise by 2010, from 415 million now to 2.6 billion.

For some legislators, that's a call to arms. Some want the violence in some games declared obscene.

"You can carve out some exceptions to the First Amendment when it is determined that these things we are talking about -- like pornography, like alcohol, like tobacco, and so on -- have harmful effects to children," Leland Yee, a Democrat in the California Assembly.

Past efforts have failed, often because of challenges from the Entertainment Software Association.

A St. Louis County law that would have limited children's access to video games was rejected in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A bill by Yee that sought to restrict the sale of games died in committee.

Nationally, proposed legislation by Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., would penalize retailers who rent or sell games with violent, sexual or other "harmful" content to minors. A version was killed in 2002 but a revised draft is making its way through the Judiciary Committee, with 43 co-sponsors.
Blaming virtual violence

Among games' most vocal critics is Jack Thompson, a Florida lawyer who has tried, so far without success, to argue for acquittal of defendants in violent crime cases in which he believed that games made them do it.

"There's a culpability here that should be shared by those who are training kids to kill," Thompson said.

Thompson is part of a $246 million case filed last year that accuses Rockstar Games, Sony Entertainment and other companies of causing two teenage stepbrothers to shoot and kill a motorist, and wound another, in Tennessee last year. The boys, who pleaded guilty to reckless homicide, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault, told authorities they were inspired by the "Grand Theft Auto" series; Thompson and another lawyer are suing on behalf of the victims.

Game makers have been largely silent on the issue. Rockstar and several major publishers refused to comment.

Still, the notion that games should be restricted is accepted elsewhere. New Zealand, Brazil, Germany and several other nations have outlawed some games.

In Britain, the makers of the "Resident Evil" series were made to change the color of blood from red to green, while the creators of "Carmageddon" had to make the people you run over in your car look more like zombies than average pedestrians.

Game makers counter that parents are responsible for the games kids play -- and need to understand that games aren't just for kids anymore. Some evidence also exists that kids don't particularly seek out violent games and don't have unfettered access to them.

The National Institute for Media and the Family, a critic of violent games, reports that 79 percent of stores it surveys prohibit selling mature-rated games to kids. Many major chains -- including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Best Buy Co. and Electronics Boutique of America Inc. -- will have a carding policy in effect by the end of 2004, though the titles are available over the Internet.

"Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," the best-selling game of 2002, was the only mature-rated game among the top 10 for 2003, according to NPD Fungroup, at No. 6.

"Vice City" trailed the top title, "Madden NFL 2004," as well as two Pokemon games and "The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker," a Nintendo Co. tale featuring a kid in a green outfit who travels by talking boat and pals around with an excitable fairy named Tingle.

And the most popular computer game of all time is Electronic Arts Inc.'s "The Sims," in which the player is virtually incapable of committing any act of violence whatsoever.

American McGee, who in 2000 made the last mature-rated game for Electronic Arts, "American McGee's Alice," said game publishers try not to get engaged in the debate over whether violent games cause violent behavior.

"They look at how hypocritical our society is when it comes to judging the content or sexuality in the media," McGee said. "And they look at how these double standards or triple standards are applied to films versus games or music versus games or written fiction versus games, and it's a silly argument to get involved in."



---------------------------


Its funny how there is plenty of reference to the Columbine incident but there are no other examples being exploited in this argument.

Any opinions?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
well i certainly dont' remember green blood in my Resident Evil games, other than in, you know, green blood type creatures

otherwise, well, same shit, different day

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:36 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Aren't such violent games already rated with an 18 certificate (or your crazy american counterpart), I know that if you are not 18 in England and you want one of these games you will have to get a parent to buy it for you in which case such a law would be pointless. Just my $0.02.

ptlis

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:04 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:40 am
Posts: 1400
Location: Right Behind You
I was pretty sure the blood color change was Germany, they(if it wasn't Germany, then the country that did) have been rather strict on game censorship if my memory of my reffering article serves me. I'll go sniff it out when I'm not at work assuming someone else doesn't do it first.

_________________
Official punta' of the CoI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:07 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
The rating system exists for a reason. Parents are supposed to monitor what their children are exposed to, or at least they're supposed to if they give a rats ass about how they're raised. E (or K-A under the new label) is suitable for anyone and everyone. T is for older children, teenagers, and adults. M is for older teenagers and adults, usually because of violence, gore, swearing, sexuality, etc. AO is for adults only, for obvious reasons.

Did we get all this tripe when they started giving movies ratings? I don't see anyone blaming R rated films or NC-17 movies for violence in todays youth. They get the same regulation and have the same influence, but by golly it's those evil video games that are doing it, I tell ya.

They just found a new scare tactic to get yuppie parents, liberals, and geriatrics, and other idiots who can't operate a butterfly ballot to make a big stink and vote for them. If they can figure out how.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 7:42 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 6793
Location: OI!
Any kid who's easily influenced by violence is gonna get inflenced by the next slasher flick, if not a video game.

Throw the kid in a box, so I can kill a guy with a plastic bag.


Manhunt... It's like art, only... creepy.

-Kitty

_________________
No. Antidisestablishmentarianism. Enigma. Muraena. Pundit. Malaise. Clusterfuck. Hootenanny.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 9:21 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Eh, some stores have a rather leniant policy on M-rated games. Though, the store I work at, it warns the cashier not to sell M-rated games to people under 17.

... Despite the fact that we don't even carry M games.

... Yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 9:39 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 12:40 am
Posts: 1400
Location: Right Behind You
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Did we get all this tripe when they started giving movies ratings? I don't see anyone blaming R rated films or NC-17 movies for violence in todays youth. They get the same regulation and have the same influence, but by golly it's those evil video games that are doing it, I tell ya.


Thoughts before lunch.

a) as I recall, we first had an ABC style ratings system which was more or less religiously motivated, so I'm going to venture the guess that there was tripe for all.

b) It doesn't even have to be R rated, but movies have been blamed (Matrix->trenchcoat mafia and the kid who lived by my area who killed his parents with a sawed off shotgun. Natural Born Killers also had a copycat issue in the news, if my memory isn't too foggy)

That's all, I eat now.

_________________
Official punta' of the CoI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 2:39 am
Posts: 1756
Location: The border of civilization
I'm lazy, so I hadn't read what you people said, but I want to share my opinion: I think that there is a link between extreme-violente games and real-life violance. But I think that they ignored two major items in their research.
The one is a common misscalculation that cause numbers to behave more like you want them to. The researcher under-conscience does small changes to facts, so they will look 'neater'. If you'll think for a sec you'll understand me.
The second is just the thought that maybe those two charachtaristics aren't a b-product of one another but a by-product of another, third charachtaristic. In this case, being human. Humans, as oppose to the way many idealistics (and non too bright for my opinion) sees them, or not nice guys. Evolution require nasty brutal kind of mind to survive. Today, in our 'civilizied' world, people don't have an outlet for their rage/anger/hate/etc. Some of them can channel it into constructive things like sports or even video games. Some cannot, but they are too weak (psychology speaking) to do anything with it, and therefore suffer from mental illnesses. And there is alwayes the group that channels it into 'nasty' (the " ' " is because I'ts just a point of view [not mine, theirs]) things, like going rampage with a house-built flamethrower (it should've happened long ago... People are lazy bastards) burning and killing and shit.

_________________
Warning! The owner of this property is armed and willing to defend life, liberty and property.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 12:48 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
I just think it's funny.

They're trying to make it official that you can't sell M-rated games to those under the age of 17, despite the fact that I havn't been anywhere that sells games that didn't card me when I went to buy one. It may not be the law, but the stores have already implemented the CYA policy -- that's Cover Your Ass -- so they don't get pissed off parents who can't return the m-rated game because it's opened, and they don't have the reciept.

On a side note: where are these kids getting $50 cash to buy these games with? I was lucky to get $20 a month!

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Herbal Enema wrote:
On a side note: where are these kids getting $50 cash to buy these games with? I was lucky to get $20 a month!


Their parents.

I wzs gonna comment on this, but then I realised it's utterly retarded. Playing violent video games won't fuck you up unless you're already fucked up, and then anything will just make it worse.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:08 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
The kids of today are the lawmakers of tommorow.

Try getting games banned then 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:18 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
You can take my violent video games when I run out of ammunition for my nine rifles.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 6:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:58 pm
Posts: 3672
Location: Twin Cities, MN
"People who think this stuff (violence in the media) affects us need to be shot."

Ah, Calvin and Hobbes, wonderful source of wisdom.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Bits and pieces (e.g. "darkness") shamelessly stolen from a speech by a friend.
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2004 12:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Remember, this is a matter of the effect it has, not of taste.

We hear it everywhere: the connection between violence in real life and "pretend" violence. And it'd be foolish to deny that there <i>is</i> a connection; there is, and numerous studies attest to that.

What kind of connection? Well, those kids who play violent video games, more often, commit violent crimes, more often, and vice-versa. So...obviously, violent behavior must be responsible for playing violent video games. Or vice-versa. Or something like that. Probably.

Maybe it's a symptom, not a cause. I don't honestly know. What I do know, is that for thousands of years, we've done the same that we've done the same thing as we're doing know. We've always liked our violence...as long as its pretend. Think, for a moment, of that classic American* game of Cowboys and Indians. No copyright, even. The children of America made it up, years ago. Your own father might have even played it.

Thing is, your father probably knew that is was all in pretend, all in good fun, when he gunned down his buddy. So does your gamer know that the polygonal figure collapsing upon the screen is all in pretend, all for the sake of common enjoyment with a good friend.

But surely is must be worse when the semi-realistic figure falls down and bleeds from a wound, no? Hardly any different than a movie, I say. The movie, which combines the realism of the people Cowboys and Indians, with the "realism" of blood from video games. And adds, in almost every instance, the aspect that is almost always absent in video games: sexuality. The hero gets the girl, and often does things I need not elaborate.

I'm not saying video games couldn't possibly be bad. I'm saying we have other priorities. Imagine, for instance a good kid. Loves his family, gets good grades, the works. If he plays a violent video game, will a darkness creep into his soul and obliterate all trace filial piety? I think not.

It's far more likely that, say, feelings of fear, anger, and hate will lead otherwise good people to do terrible things (e.g. kill unrelated Sikh people who wear a turban after 9/11).

Thinking about it, video games can't do anything that we'd do anyways, and there are far worse things to worry about in this world.

*Yes, I'm shortchanging you non-Americaners. Tough. I'm sure you have your own equivalents. His Majesty's Troops and Angry Zulus, or Followers of the Caliph and Infidels, or IDF and Hamas members. Whatever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 1:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Abunai wrote:
Remember, this is a matter of the effect it has, not of taste.


Okay...has anyone asserted otherwise? I don't think so, unless I misinterpreted a whole bunch of posts.

Abunai wrote:
We hear it everywhere: the connection between violence in real life and "pretend" violence. And it'd be foolish to deny that there is a connection; there is, and numerous studies attest to that.


Wait a minute here: which “numerous studies” are these? I certainly havn’t heard of them. Granted, I don’t keep up with the video games -> violence studies, but I think I’d have heard of something if there were so many studies (as you claim) linking them to violence.

As well, methodology, the exact contents of the study, etc, would need to be provided; put simply, trusting studies and statistics from third parties without quite a lot of info to make sure it isn’t just bullshit.

Abunai wrote:
What kind of connection? Well, those kids who play violent video games, more often, commit violent crimes, more often, and vice-versa. So...obviously, violent behavior must be responsible for playing violent video games. Or vice-versa. Or something like that. Probably.


Uh, wait, you sort of gloss over a very important distinction here: correlation or causation?

Using your standards here, I could cite numerous studies that people who are in red cars speed more often than those who arn't: the logic here, then is that red cars cause drivers to speed. Therefore: outlaw and/or restrict red cars.

This (actually 100% true) example shows the error of assuming causation from every relationship. Is it not more likely that people who drive fast prefer red cars? Likewise, is it not likely that, if someone enjoys doing violent things, they are more likely to spend their free time in the persuit of violent video games?

Abunai wrote:
Maybe it's a symptom, not a cause. I don't honestly know. What I do know, is that for thousands of years, we've done the same that we've done the same thing as we're doing know. We've always liked our violence...as long as its pretend. Think, for a moment, of that classic American* game of Cowboys and Indians. No copyright, even. The children of America made it up, years ago. Your own father might have even played it.

Thing is, your father probably knew that is was all in pretend, all in good fun, when he gunned down his buddy. So does your gamer know that the polygonal figure collapsing upon the screen is all in pretend, all for the sake of common enjoyment with a good friend.

But surely is must be worse when the semi-realistic figure falls down and bleeds from a wound, no? Hardly any different than a movie, I say. The movie, which combines the realism of the people Cowboys and Indians, with the "realism" of blood from video games. And adds, in almost every instance, the aspect that is almost always absent in video games: sexuality. The hero gets the girl, and often does things I need not elaborate.

I'm not saying video games couldn't possibly be bad. I'm saying we have other priorities. Imagine, for instance a good kid. Loves his family, gets good grades, the works. If he plays a violent video game, will a darkness creep into his soul and obliterate all trace filial piety? I think not.


Okay, a complete 180, apparently, starting with "its about what HAPPENS, not other things," along with "numerous studies show that violent video games are connected to violence" (the effect, given your original statement, implying that something should be done about the above - since it has a bad effect.) Then you turn around and say "well it doesn't matter anyway," somehow canceling out the first part of your post, with the flimsy justification of "well, movies would be worse!"

The entire post is somewhat confusing and nonsensical, along with contradictory. Just because other bad things might happen that we would do better (in your opinion) concentrating on doesn't mean we shouldn't still address the bad issue.

Using that logic, could I not say that we should allow people to steal and concentrate on murderers, because golly, murder is a lot bigger a problem than stealing, right?

The logic just doesn't seem to check out.

Uh...you kind of ramble so its hard to draw out a central point. I guess its that we should ban movies or something?

Oh, and as a side note, the arabs (at least the ones in the Gaza strip) have "Arabs and Jews" as their counterpart to cowboys and indians.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 3:12 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 308
Location: http://the-expatriates.com
I want to kill people who want to take my Doom away from me.


I personally think that videogames aren't the cause of violence, but they help normalize it to people. Same goes for movies, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:08 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
I don't know if anyone's said it yet, but I think it's more lack of parenting on the part of parents throwing video games at their kids so that they can go off and have sex undisturbed. Parents need to teach their kids to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and that the games are just fantasy.

That being said, anyone who wants to take my violent video games away from me can do so after taking 30 rounds of 7.62x39mm HP in the face.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:14 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
As it's pretty near impossible to directly establish motivations for human behavior, is anyone going to argue that:

a.) Exposure to simulated violence does (not) desensitize players to real violence?

b.) Acting in a violent manner in a simulated situation does (not) condition players to react in a more violent fashion in general?


Mostly just curious, but I could see how some interesting parallels could be drawn between game violence and the much-talked about changes in infantry training after the Korean War. (Human silhouette targets, desensitization training, etc.)

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 3:17 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
The Man In Black wrote:
Abunai wrote:
We hear it everywhere: the connection between violence in real life and "pretend" violence. And it'd be foolish to deny that there is a connection; there is, and numerous studies attest to that.


Wait a minute here: which “numerous studies” are these? I certainly havn’t heard of them. Granted, I don’t keep up with the video games -> violence studies, but I think I’d have heard of something if there were so many studies (as you claim) linking them to violence.

Frankly, I've seen them often enough that I don't care about whether or not you have, too. Tough. Go look it up.

Mibbers wrote:
Abunai wrote:
What kind of connection? Well, those kids who play violent video games, more often, commit violent crimes, more often, and vice-versa. So...obviously, violent behavior must be responsible for playing violent video games. Or vice-versa. Or something like that. Probably.


Uh, wait, you sort of gloss over a very important distinction here: correlation or causation?

Using your standards here, I could cite numerous studies that people who are in red cars speed more often than those who arn't: the logic here, then is that red cars cause drivers to speed. Therefore: outlaw and/or restrict red cars.

This (actually 100% true) example shows the error of assuming causation from every relationship. Is it not more likely that people who drive fast prefer red cars? Likewise, is it not likely that, if someone enjoys doing violent things, they are more likely to spend their free time in the persuit of violent video games?

Please note the "Or vice-versa. Or something like that. Probably." Those sentence fragments show unsureness in the poor point, which is markedly different from the rest of the post (wherein all poor points are shown full confidence). Note, also, the "complete 180" on the same subject. Using some logic combined with a little basic social insight, it can then be confidently assumed that the unsureness of the former point is, in fact, making fun of those who try to assert said point.

Id est, I was joking.

Mibbers wrote:
Abunai wrote:
More of me talking....blah blah blah...

Okay, a complete 180, apparently, starting with "its about what HAPPENS, not other things," along with "numerous studies show that violent video games are connected to violence" (the effect, given your original statement, implying that something should be done about the above - since it has a bad effect.) Then you turn around and say "well it doesn't matter anyway," somehow canceling out the first part of your post, with the flimsy justification of "well, movies would be worse!"

Your post is confusing/nonsensical/etc.

Using your logic, focus on murder, ignore petty theft, by golly.

Ergo, your logic is bad.

Uh...you kind of ramble so its hard to draw out a central point. I guess its that we should ban movies or something?

Indeed, I could have done better. I forgot to explicitly state (instead of implying) that it would be hypocritical to hold video games to a higher standard than movies. The sort of thing I'd leave you to try to do. :P

Yeah, I rambled because I wasn't trying to make a point. Sorry.

Mibbers wrote:
Oh, and as a side note, the arabs (at least the ones in the Gaza strip) have "Arabs and Jews" as their counterpart to cowboys and indians.

Sweet.

Anyways, video games don't represent anything new, and don't mean the end of the world. Personally, I believe the current rating system as effective as that of movies (it should, considering it's about the same thing), which represent about the same thing (i.e. violent entertainment) as games.

One thing that does worry me, however, is the disturbing lack of sex in video games. After all, we have it all over TV and film...where is it when it comes our games?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group