# Violence in video games.



## Andrew Green (Jul 3, 2005)

http://d-fens.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=5179966&publicUserId=5629740

 Interesting read, might make for some interesting discussion.  (Language warning)


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 3, 2005)

That guy's post was moronic, and an indicator of someone who needs to grow up.

Despite the straw man arguement that gamers often present, no one being logical claims that violent video games and media "makes" someone violent.

However, it is pretty well proven that violent media desensitizes people to violence through positive reinforcement, thus supressing that part of our consious that tells us not to perform violent acts.

Paul


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 3, 2005)

My personal opinion... the guy is an idiot. 
Violence never solved anything... it may have prevented more violence but it didn't take care of the problem. 
How young people today are reared by their parents weighs heavily upon how they turn out tomorrow, the next week or ten years from now. 
IMO parents are ultimately responsible for the actions of their children until they reach the age where society determines them self-accountable. This goes for those teenagers running rampant on the streets as gang members. It goes for latch-key kids and dual working parent households. Not all kids turn out bad, but as we've been seeing lately not all kids turn out good. Question is how to make more good kids than bad kids? 

Many people want to lay the blame but there are few who are willing to take the blame it seems.  
Violent video games, movies, songs (i.e. "Cop-Killer and their predecessors) and anything else that kids are exposed to; racial and social class hatred, sex, crime (overall) and so forth have influence upon their behavior but it only gives them the means in which to act out their choices. A child growing up without proper guidance to what is a good/bad choice, what is right/wrong, how to behave and respond appropriately should something upset us will enact out their feelings via methods learned through their various media exposures. Young minds are easily impressionable. They take in a multitude of stimuli via video and audio and other sources. How can they manage to sort out the good and the bad all by themselves? They are simply incapable of doing so... period. They need an older and more experienced view point to help them.
Parents* have to* take a proactive stance in what their children are exposed to and have to guide and teach them the values which will not lead to violence or to know when is violence necessary... really necessary. They have to let them know what is the good and the bad. Kids are wanting to know and need that trusting voice to tell them. The trusting voice *should* be the parent. Followed by responsible adults, i.e. teachers and athletic coaches and so forth. 
We've become a nation so dependent upon the "easy way of life". Raising our children seems to become part of that mainstream.  Seems too difficult to say NO to our children when they want GTA or Hitman or any other violent game. "they're fun!" "they're cool!" ... fine here's the game now get out of my face. 
Who's teaching the kid? Certianly not the parent that indulges the child to be exposed to such material for hours on end.  

RANT RANT RANT... geez what's the point? I seem to have lost it.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Jul 3, 2005)

I think a lot of the problem deals with parental responsibility or rather a lack thereof. The internet, the video game machines, or any other source of relax out there is not going to raise their child.  And while an 18+ year old may play a lot of those violent games and not take them seriously, ever so often when I walk into an electronics store I see kids whose parents are purchasing these types of games for them without a clue in the world as to their contents.  So long as it gets the kid to 'shut-up' so they can watch their sitcoms, is fine by them.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 3, 2005)

related article http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=5179663&publicUserId=5345401


----------



## Marginal (Jul 4, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Despite the straw man arguement that gamers often present, no one being logical claims that violent video games and media "makes" someone violent.



You're right about the no one being logical aspect of this, but on the other hand, the bulk of people doing studies on this topic come in with a set agenda. One study found no links, but concluded with "While no links have been found, this means the right tests have not been developed, and finding a link between violent video games and violent behaviour is only a matter of time." 

Also cut to all the Grossman fueled "murder simulator" rhetoric that popped uo around the time of the Columbine killings. Logic and/or common sense have little to do with rhetoric capable of swawing public opinion. Those illogical claims have been leveled. Joseph Lieberman loves 'em for example.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 4, 2005)

I'd be more willing to put money on violent video games WITH proper guidance resulting in less violence, giving violent people a release that doesn't result in real violence.

 But "violence is bad and thats the end of it" doesn't do anyone any good.  People need a release, whether it is real (sports) or fantasy (video games, D&D) doesn't matter, as long as there is a release

 But what is more violent, football or Grand Theft Auto?  One is real people hurting each other, the other is just computer generated people in a make believe world...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 4, 2005)

evenflow1121 said:
			
		

> I think a lot of the problem deals with parental responsibility or rather a lack thereof. The internet, the video game machines, or any other source of relax out there is not going to raise their child.  And while an 18+ year old may play a lot of those violent games and not take them seriously, ever so often when I walk into an electronics store I see kids whose parents are purchasing these types of games for them without a clue in the world as to their contents.  So long as it gets the kid to 'shut-up' so they can watch their sitcoms, is fine by them.


An 18 yr old might not take them seriously or even a 16 or 17 yr old. But these games are readily accessable to 9 to 14 yr olds (or younger), via internet downloads, older siblings, friends who's older siblings may have them and so forth. I've seen young kids of that lower age group buy/rent these games with/without parental supervision/accompanyment. Maybe the larger store chains won't sell them to "minors" but less scrupluous or less caring smaller stores will. These kids will get their hands on them either way if they want them bad enough. 
The key is still the parents; visually inspecting all game, video and music material for "unsuitable content and confiscating anything that they deem "unsuitable" for their child. But it's a double edged sword there isn't it? We presume that the parent knows what's best for their child and what is or isn't suitable material for them. As you've observed "so long as it gets the kid to shut-up and leave them alone..." 
But in a "free-society" who are we to dictate how parents raise their children? "One man's porn is another man's art" as the saying goes. Same goes for what is suitable/unsuitable violence. 
But the effects are subtle and easily overlooked or poo poo-ed as "not that bad". I'm sure that there are studies being conducted by the authors of such material and those studies are of course for marketing purposes. How best to line their pockets, rather than how best to help minimize influential effects of their products upon the younger generation(s). Ah but they need to suit the whims and desires of the older generations too don't they? Thus slapping on "parental advisory" labels helps (in their eyes) ensure that said "adult-oriented" material doesn't make it into a minor's hands. Good luck with that eh?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 4, 2005)

Movies are accessible to those that want too see them too and have been for years.

 There may be restrictions, they might even be enforced better then game restrictions, but they are still easy to get around.

 And there is not many games that are more "mature" then what can be seen on tv durring prime time.  Unless the person playing them makes them that way.


----------



## Yari (Jul 4, 2005)

materiale deamed unproper has been around as long as man could think and socilize(sp?). If it was porn or movies or just a plan book, there were times people meant that it would ruin society or the individual, corrupt poeples thoughts. Comics were ruled as beeing descentitizing(sp?), so were books before that, yes and even the radio was deamed an anti socilizing factor (also the TV got "shot" at, long before voilence started on it).

But today comics in general nobody thinks badly of, nor the TV it self, not even books. It's the content itself thats a problem. Or really how people feel about that content.

So its the peronal realationship to that content that is inportant and in question.

Theres no doubt in my mind that if you don't relate to the content you exposed too, or your siblings are exposed to you wont have the option to decied how it should effect you or your siblings.

Which brings me to the point were I agree with another person in this thread that we should learn how to handle these things. 


/Yari


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 4, 2005)

Lets try and cut through the "rhetoric" and get to the "logic". Many people who are resisting the idea of any link between violence and video games are adults who wish to retain access to those same video games. Talk about going in to the discussion with an ulterior motive. 

I myself enjoy some violent video games, but i'm also 30 years old and have developed, for the most part, the ability to seperate the fantasy from the reality. It's not quite the same with young children and teenagers. I also have a 2 year old daughter, and I will not expose her to the contents of even some of the more mild video game material, as well as violent media of other sorts. As a father I am much more aware than I used to be about the effects of media on children. I do not watch movies with even mild violent or sexual content in her presence. I watch daily how even the most insignificant interactions that I take for granted, impact her learning process. 

Lets do a simple test of our feelings on the matter.

Should we allow access to young children (consider it any age under 13) to violent video games such as grand theft auto? 

Would you feel comfortable in a society that felt that exposing young children to this type of material was appropriate?

Do you feel that material that ties two powerful psychological forces together, such as sex and violence, has an even more powerful psychological effect?

Do you believe that we can desensitize people to violence through powerful media and thereby reduce resistance to violence? If so, what psychological triggers are most effective in creating this violence enabling?

Since we are primarily sensory creatures, do you believe that what we choose to focus our senses on has a direct impact on our actions? 

If it isn't sensory imput that effects our actions, by what process do we 
acquire knowledge about the world? 

In closing I must admit, again, that I myself enjoy certain violent video games on occassion. However, my concern is that while adults may be able to handle this kind of violent imagery, it's effects on young adolescents concerns me. I'd like to close with this question.

If you had a 12 year old child and you came across a grisly murder scene of violent death and dismemberment, would you allow your 12 year old child to view that scene if you could prevent it? Why or why not?

Still, the ultimate problem is parents not parenting.  Of course, that's fine for me, I parent.  I have no control over how the morons down the block raise their children.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 4, 2005)

Lets do a simple test of our feelings on the matter.
Well okay, but remember you're asking for our feelings... I gotta ask first though (at the risk of sounding like Spock), ... are feelings... logical?

Should we allow access to young children (consider it any age under 13) to violent video games such as grand theft auto?
My feelings on it... no. My logical and rational thoughts on it... again, no. Young minds are not capable of sorting out the right/wrong of the images and understanding the implications of what they're seeing. They see a guy driving at high speed (eluding the police btw) and at times causing auto accidents and running people down (intentionally and unintentionally). Shooting people and beating them with various impliments of bodily destruction. Is a child (under the age of 13) going to properly see that this is just mere fantasy and not what people do in real life... hell, they see it on the news don't they? They get this reality information from dozens of sources. They're not going to think at some point... this is normal? This is acceptable behavior? Not all of them will... but some might. We just can't tell. Question is do we want to take the risk? 
There's also the moral question of it all. Is it really OKAY to let kids be exposed to such things? Ok to whom? And why? 

Would you feel comfortable in a society that felt that exposing young children to this type of material was appropriate?
Of course not. But the (majority) of a society in any given area/city/country will dictate what is appropriate and what is not. Thailand says it's okay for an adult to lay down (sexually) with a child. The U.S. (and -- thankfully -- many other countries) says it is not. But that can change ... couldn't it? If society as a whole here (in the U.S.) says that it's okay for young kids to see extreme violent material or sexually explict material then yes I would be *very* uncomfortable about it. 

Do you feel that material that ties two powerful psychological forces together, such as sex and violence, has an even more powerful psychological effect?
If it has an (proven) effect on adults then wouldn't it have an even more powerful (if misunderstood) effect on children? 

Do you believe that we can desensitize people to violence through powerful media and thereby reduce resistance to violence? If so, what psychological triggers are most effective in creating this violence enabling?
When I was a kid I watched movies i.e. the Godfather, Bonnie and Clyde, The  Wild Bunch and a host of others. I recall being disturbed by them (as a kid), obviously so because I recall the effect they had on me. Now, I can watch movies with such violence as Saving Private Ryan, Dawn of the Dead, Scarface (Pacino), The Usual Suspects and so forth and not be bothered by the violence in it in the same way. Desensititzed? :idunno: mebbe. Some folks are still bothered by it, it depends upon one's view point. And that changes with age and experience. Having directly experienced violence in the real world and seeing it inflicted upon others, one might say that I'm desenstitized to it. But it didn't desensitized me to the effects that it has on kids. In many respects the violence (and sex) in our media today is radically more so than it was when I was younger. This is not minimizing the media back then but to say that it's more permissive. Witness: Two Angry Beavers, Ed- Edd and Eddie, Ren and Stimpy and so forth. These are examples. Kung Fu Fighter was a game (in my youth) about some bruce lee look-a-like kicking and beating up antagonists ala "game of death" ascension to the big boss, no different in concept than say the Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat games and their subsquent clones today... but the violence with those games is terribly realistic. More blood and gore are undeniably evident. Over time these playstation/x-box players will be desensitized to it. Desensitation doesn't happen overnight. 

Since we are primarily sensory creatures, do you believe that what we choose to focus our senses on has a direct impact on our actions?
I'll ask you as a martial artist... shouldn't you already know the answer to that question? For me (as a MA-ist) the answer is yes. I don't use the force and I don't have eyes in the back of my head and I don't have super hearing so what I *do* sense around me in my immediate environment has influence upon my response(s). Training and practice and experience however does help control immediate responses. This is something a child will not have. 

If it isn't sensory imput that effects our actions, by what process do we acquire knowledge about the world? Our sensory input is only part of our learning processes. What we read, and hear from others gives us more information. Our personal experiences and interaction with others over the years will teach us more. We are always and constantly learning and analyzing data through our five senses and the data input into our brains. The result however will be different from person to person. 

In closing I must admit, again, that I myself enjoy certain violent video games on occassion. However, my concern is that while adults may be able to handle this kind of violent imagery, it's effects on young adolescents concerns me. I'd like to close with this question.
I'll admit as well that I like a good game that has some shoot-em up action in it... to a point. 

If you had a 12 year old child and you came across a grisly murder scene of violent death and dismemberment, would you allow your 12 year old child to view that scene if you could prevent it? Why or why not?
If I can prevent it of course I would do my best to avert their eyes, turn them away, send them out of the room ... whatever! In a scene from Star Trek TNG The mother of Worf's child was brutally murdered. Worf and his son walk in the room and see the body. Instead of turning the child away he told his son to take a good look. Well, that's Klingon culture for you. But we're human and while we (seem to be) a very war-like species we still would not (and should not) allow children to see such things. For me it's not civilized and it's not moral. Kids know there's a war going on in Iraq, they know that people are being killed everyday by suicide bombers. They know this information.... surely they don't need to see it (the images available on the internet) do they? 

Still, the ultimate problem is parents not parenting. Of course, that's fine for me, I parent. I have no control over how the morons down the block raise their children. 
No, you don't... but you DO have control of who's kids your kids play with, don't you? Mebbe you cannot prevent them from associating with them while at school. But you can forbid and hopefully they'll obey. You can deny them sleep-overs and visits. You still retain the right of who your kids play/associate with. 
Oh and remember this... the "morons down the block"... they might think the same of you. :wink1:


----------



## Yari (Jul 4, 2005)

When I play now it's mostly " I win over evebody else" kind of game. It really doesn't matter if its a board game, video game or fantasy game og just plan running in the forest. 

When my father played with his friends, they played "cops and robbers", killing each other, blowing things up, even influcting wounds on each other. They even palyed in eviroments the were very hazardes to their lives. they also played WW2, germans against everbody else, killing and hacking on the germans. It also was a question of winning.

When my grand father played with his friends they played "Cos and robbers", tieing each other to trees, throwing them off roofs, using "weapons". They also were part of the houshold that killed animals, drained their blood, saw them die, even saw their friends and family die of things like common colds or the like. Also important the winning aspect.

I'm not saying that I want to let my two daughters to experience voilence. But trying to focus that maybe we humans are capbable of handling things better than expected, and we should be careful not to go over the edge (on the other side). We could become so "sensitive" that saying "boh" to somebody might just crack their selfesteem. 

Dont forget that the reason you can defined your logik now is that your experince has given you that chance. Your taking it away if you try and stop letting children (or somebody of the same mental level) experiencing it.

/Yari


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Lets try and cut through the "rhetoric" and get to the "logic". Many people who are resisting the idea of any link between violence and video games are adults who wish to retain access to those same video games. Talk about going in to the discussion with an ulterior motive.



Absolutely....boy, talk about pointing out the big pink elephant in the room...

I'd like to add that given my fairly libertarian viewpoint, I am not for outlawing violent games. Just let parents do the parenting, propigate the warning labels that are in place, and don't let kids under 18 buy games with certian labels. All this is mostly to make parents aware. I feel that a major problem is that parents aren't aware of the effects that these games might have on the developement of their kids, so they pretty much let their kids own whatever games they want.

But to seriously argue that games like these don't play a role in desensitization to violence is silly and irresponsable in my opinion. Why not just simply tell the truth, and say something like, "Violent video games could play a role in desensitizing people to violence, which is why that even though I like to play them for a variety of reasons outside of the violent nature of the games, I don't recommend them for kids or teens." That, to me, would be much more of a responsable arguement.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 4, 2005)

Yari said:
			
		

> When I play now it's mostly " I win over evebody else" kind of game. It really doesn't matter if its a board game, video game or fantasy game og just plan running in the forest.
> 
> When my father played with his friends, they played "cops and robbers", killing each other, blowing things up, even influcting wounds on each other. They even palyed in eviroments the were very hazardes to their lives. they also played WW2, germans against everbody else, killing and hacking on the germans. It also was a question of winning.
> 
> ...



Most people miss the point with the arguement about games/media propigating violence.

When kids are running around the yard and playing cops and robbers, there is both positive and negative consequence to that game. If one kid tackles the other too hard, or play's to ruff and hurts another, the kid cry's and goes home; and most kids without mental problems don't actually like to make another kid cry so this is a negative consequence. If that kid tells his mom, and that mom calls yours; negative consequence. When kids play, they see the positive and negative consequence to their physical action.

You don't get this in video games. In games today, you mostly get positive reward for doing violent acts. It is fantasy where there is no negative consequence for killing a cop, punching a girl, or ripping a dude out of his car at gunpoint and stealing it. With these games, people learn to associate positive reward (even if it is just pure enjoyment of playing the game) with violent acts. This is where the problem is. It is not just exposure to violence that is the problem. There is "good" kind of exposure (good meaning where the individual see's the negitive consequences involved with violence) and "bad" kind of exposure; and I'd rank video games and other related media up there with the "bad."

Paul


----------



## BaiKaiGuy (Jul 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Still, the ultimate problem is parents not parenting. Of course, that's fine for me, I parent. I have no control over how the morons down the block raise their children.


And here you hit the nail on the head.  Trust me if parents did better parenting, I'd be out of a job.  Too many parents spoil their kids or don't pay attentioin to what they're doing because they're just plain lazy.  It doesn't take much effort to read a box before you buy something for your kid.  My parents were able to say "no".  I don't understand why more parents can't.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 4, 2005)

We let my son get Halo and Halo2 this weekend. But, I might've drawn the line at Grand Theft Auto. No theory, just a parent's intuition about the effects of such influences.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 4, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Lets try and cut through the "rhetoric" and get to the "logic". Many people who are resisting the idea of any link between violence and video games are adults who wish to retain access to those same video games. Talk about going in to the discussion with an ulterior motive.



Seems mainly to be teens. Adults aren't going to have their access restricted. Except for cases of the games rated 18+/AO, which most stores flat out refuse to carry unless the title is huge. (Not typically much of a loss since AO games tend to be games with heavy sex themes and no worthwhile game content to support it.)


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> We let my son get Halo and Halo2 this weekend. But, I might've drawn the line at Grand Theft Auto. No theory, just a parent's intuition about the effects of such influences.


Besides which, I think that, as human parents, we have a responsibility to encourage our children to kill aliens. Don't you? :uhyeah:


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> We let my son get Halo and Halo2 this weekend. But, I might've drawn the line at Grand Theft Auto. No theory, just a parent's intuition about the effects of such influences.



That is actually a lot better then many of the games, because you aren't killing and being violent to human beings (and images of such).


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 4, 2005)

MACaver said:
			
		

> If you had a 12 year old child and you came across a grisly murder scene of violent death and dismemberment, would you allow your 12 year old child to view that scene if you could prevent it? Why or why not?
> If I can prevent it of course I would do my best to avert their eyes, turn them away, send them out of the room ... whatever! In a scene from Star Trek TNG The mother of Worf's child was brutally murdered. Worf and his son walk in the room and see the body. Instead of turning the child away he told his son to take a good look. Well, that's Klingon culture for you. But we're human and while we (seem to be) a very war-like species we still would not (and should not) allow children to see such things. For me it's not civilized and it's not moral. Kids know there's a war going on in Iraq, they know that people are being killed everyday by suicide bombers. They know this information.... surely they don't need to see it (the images available on the internet) do they?


Good point about Star Trek TNG. Of course keep this in mind. Why did they tell their son to take a good look? Because they are a warrior society, and he wanted to prepare the boys for a violent existence. The same reason Samurai boys were exposed to violent death from an early age, to desensitize them to it and prepare them for a life where violent death was normal. Not sure we want to teach our children this lesson.




			
				MACaver said:
			
		

> Still, the ultimate problem is parents not parenting. Of course, that's fine for me, I parent. I have no control over how the morons down the block raise their children.





			
				MACaver said:
			
		

> No, you don't... but you DO have control of who's kids your kids play with, don't you? Mebbe you cannot prevent them from associating with them while at school. But you can forbid and hopefully they'll obey. You can deny them sleep-overs and visits. You still retain the right of who your kids play/associate with.
> Oh and remember this... the "morons down the block"... they might think the same of you. :wink1:


Not quite the point. I'm not concerned with my children playing with the kids down the block, because they are not going to. It's what the children down the block begin doing at 12 or 14 whenever the parents that have never controlled their behavior let them run free, namely steal my property, burglarize my house, rob the liquor store on the corner. Them playing with my children isn't even on the list. What they think of me is pretty clear. My real moronic neighbors don't think of me as a moron, they think of me as an ******* for my lack of "tolerance" of their state of being.



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Absolutely....boy, talk about pointing out the big pink elephant in the room...
> 
> I'd like to add that given my fairly libertarian viewpoint, I am not for outlawing violent games. Just let parents do the parenting, propigate the warning labels that are in place, and don't let kids under 18 buy games with certian labels. All this is mostly to make parents aware. I feel that a major problem is that parents aren't aware of the effects that these games might have on the developement of their kids, so they pretty much let their kids own whatever games they want.
> 
> ...


 That's exactly my point. Just as I feel it should not be illegal for adults to purchase adult pornography, I believe that violent video games should be treated as what they are....adult games. Children should be shielded from those games until they are adults.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> We let my son get Halo and Halo2 this weekend. But, I might've drawn the line at Grand Theft Auto. No theory, just a parent's intuition about the effects of such influences.


And there is a fine line between the two. Violence is not just simply violence. I've played Halo and Halo2. You kill aliens who are invading your planet. That's violence on one level. Then in Grand Theft Auto you play a criminal who shoots police, has sex with hookers and kills people for enjoyment and personal gain. There is a qualitative difference between types of violence. I tried playing GTA. On a personal level I don't enjoy "role playing" the kind of character glamorized in the game. It's kind of morally repulsive, even as just a game. If I find the actions being role played morally repugnant, and I find myself morally resisting the actions of controlling that character, what are the effects on a 12 year old boy who learns to view those actions as enjoyable?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> I suppose so...but, my wife and I hear them saying Kill This, Kill That for hours on end. It's bothersome. They generalize it--they talk about killing in Pokemon, where of course they merely 'faint' (to keep it PG), or killing robots.
> 
> We speak to them about their choice of language, but it's hard to fight it.


 Sure, we as parents become concerned when our children enjoy role-playing the idea of killing even obviously evil enemy characters in a game, such as Halo. How much more disconcerting is it to hear them enjoying the death of a police officer or a hooker in a game like GTA. There seems to be an invisible line there somewhere that we have crossed well over.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 4, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Besides which, I think that, as human parents, we have a responsibility to encourage our children to kill aliens.


 Heh. Sometimes it bothers me listening to the kids sit there saying "Kill it! Kill it!" or "It killed me!" or what have you. But, I don't really think they're thinking that it's OK to kill. It's cartoonish.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 4, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> That is actually a lot better then many of the games, because you aren't killing and being violent to human beings (and images of such).


 I suppose so...but, my wife and I hear them saying Kill This, Kill That for hours on end. It's bothersome. They generalize it--they talk about killing in Pokemon, where of course they merely 'faint' (to keep it PG), or killing robots.

 We speak to them about their choice of language, but it's hard to fight it.


----------



## Sapper6 (Jul 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> But what is more violent, football or Grand Theft Auto?  One is real people hurting each other, the other is just computer generated people in a make believe world...



football is a sport.  if you're gonna throw in football, how about ALL semi-violent activities.

there's no way you can compare an organized sport to a video game about gang-banging, rape, murder, dope, etc.  football is a sport comprised of athleticism, just like olympic TKD, boxing, wrestling, whatever.  how in the world could you possibly relate the two...? :idunno: 

i'd much rather have my kids playing a "semi-violent" contact sport then have them playing a video game that presents rewards for raping and killing a hooker.  

wierd things breed wierd people.

the kid that wrote the article merely presenting reasons why it should be OK for kids to play these kinds of games.  that's fine.  kinda sounds like an idiot throughout most of the article thought but whatever.  my kids won't.  my kids will be hitting the studio training for the day they might come into "unpleasureable" contact with some freak that might have been influenced by such games to do the stupid ****.

on the other hand, being a music fan, i can remember when they blamed the school shootings on devil music and marilyn manson.  whatever.  like say, wierd things breed wierd people.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 4, 2005)

You don't get rewarded for killing in GTA, you get the cops after you.  More of a punishment really...

 Violent play has always been a part of being a kid.  Cops & robbers / Cowboys & indians (guess teaching racism was ok...?)

 But, if you read the articles no one claims that young kids should be playing these games.  In fact he says that the problem lies with parents not paying attention, the 12-year old potty mouth for example.  What he says is that violent video games don't make people violent.

 There are strawmen on both sides, and that is all that ever seems to come up.  There is a rating system on games, the fact that many parents ignore it is not the fault of the games.  And that the violence is not as bad as the media makes it out to be, it CAN be, because that option is there, but generally that is not the point of the game.

 Mario can be made to jump into the abyss intentionally and repeatidly, but no one argues that motivates people to jump off buildings.  

 Violent people take the potential violence that can come out of anything and magnify it, whether it is melting green army men, popping heads off dolls  or killing sprees in video games.  The options for violence are a part of many things, but most often that is not the point of the game, just an potential option within it.

 And for the record my favorite GTA game was Simpsons: Hit and Run   Only one I played for long...


----------



## arnisador (Jul 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Violent play has always been a part of being a kid.  Cops & robbers / Cowboys & indians


 Yes, this is a good point.

 But, I'm still saying no to Grand Theft Auto!


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 4, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Yes, this is a good point.
> 
> But, I'm still saying no to Grand Theft Auto!


 It's not a game meant for kids, not many would claim that kids should be able to access it.  But for teenagers / adults, there is nothing wrong with it, it's not going to make them violent.  If they already are violent maybe it will provide a release...


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 4, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> You don't get rewarded for killing in GTA, you get the cops after you.  More of a punishment really...



Whatever dude. You can choose to ignore the facts all you want, but it won't change them. Many of these games create an alternate reality where there is positive reward for violent acts. Furthermore, there is no comparison to the digital realism created by games today and kids in the 70's playing army. Not to mention, there is a repetitiveness that happends when one plays these games so you get to replay and retry violent acts over and over again for hours of desensitization; another thing you can't compare to kids playing cops and robbers.

Violent simulations through video games and other media desensitizes people to violence; and although this is more impacting on teens and kids, adults are not immune to the process.

Hey...I think that games now a days are neat too, and fun to play. But that isn't going to make me create an irresponsable arguement with no evidence to support it. To actually try to make the arguement that these games which simulate violent acts with positive reward is not going to desensitize the players to violence (and possibly psychologically harm them) not only defies modern research, but it defies common sense.

Paul


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 5, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Hey...I think that games now a days are neat too, and fun to play. But that isn't going to make me create an irresponsable arguement with no evidence to support it.


 Can you provide a reference to studies from different sources that show a causal connection between playing violent games and commiting violent acts?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 5, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Can you provide a reference to studies from different sources that show a causal connection between playing violent games and commiting violent acts?


 Is it your assertion that there is no such link? I grew up in a media culture where we watched repetative acts of the "good guy" killing "the bad guy". The effect on me? My moral compass swings to the belief system that I really have no empathy when a so-called "bad guy" dies. I really don't. 

As a student of psychology, I have examined my own attitudes and tried to determine where many of them come from. I partially attribute that lack of empathy to repetative viewing of this kind of media and partially to the culture I grew up in. I thought it was cool, when I was younger, to fantasize about "killing the badguy" much as many of my predecessors did, whether it was "fighting the germans" or playing "cops and robbers", generations of boys before me had the same fantasy. But there was a moral compass to it. We had a clear of view, in our violent imagery, of what constitute "good" and "bad". We wanted to be the good guys. You got stuck playing the bad guy, and it was understood that the good guys won. 

Fast forward a few years. Now we no longer show just repetative media where it's good to kill "the bad guy", we show repetative media where it's good to kill anyone who gets in your way or offends you. We glorify shooting the cop who is trying to arrest you, we think it's funny to kill the hooker to get your money back or shoot random innocent by-standers. Lets couple that with a culture that believes that authority of all types is bad, and that women are a sex object, and that the only goal in life is to get paid by any means necessary. 

What's good now? It's irrelavent. It is now merely violence for violence sake. It's not violence for a real purpose, it's simply violence for power. Violence for personal gain. The morality has flipped completely around. Now we glorify the "bad guy" (remember, the guy nobody used to want to be...the guy that the rule was died at the end of our old role playing scenarios). Now it's the cops who are the enemy, or the public, or the teller who doesn't hand over the money fast enough, or the girl who won't "give it up".  

That's the image many kids are taking as role-models.  It isn't just video games, either.  It's no coincidence that these ultra violent video games and other media are backed by modern rap and hip-hop soundtracks giving the same messages.  It's a multi-media phenomenon.  

What do you think the effect is going to be? Well adjusted adults? I ask you again, do you truly believe that there is no direct link between this kind of extreme violence (lets not be coy, the simulated murder of innocent people for entertainment) and real world aggression? 

Why is it that those who don't wish to see the link try to obfuscate the point by lumping all violence together, as if there is no difference between playing football and fantasizing about rape and murder? It's a lousy argument. The fact is, what we fantasize about sometimes has a way of becoming real. I'm not concerned with some football playing accidentally losing it at tackling a whole bunch of people. 

The fact is numerous studies exist showing a direct link between media violence and real world violence. That link is even clearer the more violent the media, and the more the themes are mixed with sexual content. Of course if you look you can cite studies that attempt to refute those studies, for verious reasons and motives.


----------



## Yari (Jul 5, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> ....When kids are running around the yard and playing cops and robbers, there is both positive and negative consequence to that game. If one kid tackles the other too hard, or play's to ruff and hurts another, the kid cry's and goes home; and most kids without mental problems don't actually like to make another kid cry so this is a negative consequence. If that kid tells his mom, and that mom calls yours; negative consequence. When kids play, they see the positive and negative consequence to their physical action.
> 
> You don't get this in video games. In games today, you mostly get positive reward for doing violent acts. ....
> Paul




I get the point. thanks for the enlightment.

/Yari


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 5, 2005)

"Back in the Day" they said that the Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin I was listening to would incline me toward violence and immorality. We only had Pong and Atari back then, so video games didn't come into play. To use a RMCRobertson term, it's a shibboleth. 

We feel comfort in thinking that there's some external influence that causes horrible incidents like Columbine. It makes us feel like there's a reason. There's not. In the end, it was just a couple of very well armed kids with a highly developed grudge and egomania. Should their parents have recognized the signs? Absolutely. Should we blame the incident on GTA and Marilyn Manson? No. Plenty of people listen to Marilyn Manson, play GTA, and don't kill people. Myself included.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 5, 2005)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> "Back in the Day" they said that the Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin I was listening to would incline me toward violence and immorality. We only had Pong and Atari back then, so video games didn't come into play. To use a RMCRobertson term, it's a shibboleth.
> 
> We feel comfort in thinking that there's some external influence that causes horrible incidents like Columbine. It makes us feel like there's a reason. There's not. In the end, it was just a couple of very well armed kids with a highly developed grudge and egomania. Should their parents have recognized the signs? Absolutely. Should we blame the incident on GTA and Marilyn Manson? No. Plenty of people listen to Marilyn Manson, play GTA, and don't kill people. Myself included.


 So it is your assertion that there is no link between extremely violent imagery and aggression? You feel absolutely comfortable making that absolute pronouncement? 

If it is your assertion that violent imagery does not equal real world actions, let me give you this scenario. Should convicted child molestors on parole be allowed access to vivid images of simultated violent child pornography? If it has nothing to do with someone's actions, should this be material that we allow everyone access to?  Is it your assertion that it's all the same, and that there really isn't a line there?


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The fact is numerous studies exist showing a direct link between media violence and real world violence.


I'd like to see a citation of those studies. And the backgrounds of the subjects. There are so many variables there. And if a teen is plugged into video games all day long, there is a more serious parenting issue there. 

The media tends to mislead us. If it bleeds, it leads. The facts are that America is a much less violent place than it used to be. You wouldn't know it from the news, but it is. As an LEO, you might be on the *** end of the tiger. And as an LEO, you might try to rationalize why people are so ******. Well, we've always been that way. History is a *****.


----------



## psi_radar (Jul 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So it is your assertion that there is no link between extremely violent imagery and aggression? You feel absolutely comfortable making that absolute pronouncement?
> 
> If it is your assertion that violent imagery does not equal real world actions, let me give you this scenario. Should convicted child molestors on parole be allowed access to vivid images of simultated violent child pornography? If it has nothing to do with someone's actions, should this be material that we allow everyone access to?  Is it your assertion that it's all the same, and that there really isn't a line there?


Damn, you must be on the night shift, since I was just off to bed, but I'm enjoying the conversation. 

Yes, I'm saying that simulated actions in the virtual world do not equate to a will to do the same in real life. I played dungeons and dragons way back when, and I still haven't cut someone down with a vorpal sword. I've also read Clockwork Orange and didn't get the temptation to bust into someone's home and gang-rape the occupants. And I've listened to Beethoven's Ninth symphony and been overcome with passions and...wait, yes I was. But get my point? Every generation has its edge, its scapegoat for the young or deranged. 

Your example. I say let the child molester stare at the wall of their cell, and then when they're let out into the yard, announce over the PA "XXXX is coming out. He's a molester."

Of course, they may not be guilty. The world's full of black and whites, and when mixed together they're a very bland gray. It's very comfortable in the land of black and white.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 5, 2005)

All of the violent games are rated M.  This means that they should not be being played by kids under 18.   So the theory goes anyway.

 Its not the gaming companies fault that parents and retailers don't follow the guidelines that are set forth.

 Once parents start realizing that games are like movies, the debate will die down I think.  Unless the oppenents start going after all media, and I doubt that will go any farther than it already has.

 Seems rediculous to me that often times parents would never let their 12 yo see a rated R movie, but will buy him whatever game he wants.

 I would like to here some suggested courses of action from those of you that are convinced there is a link between violence in games and violence in real life.  What do we do about it?  Should the government get to tell us what is allowed in games and what isn't?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 5, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The fact is numerous studies exist showing a direct link between media violence and real world violence. That link is even clearer the more violent the media, and the more the themes are mixed with sexual content. Of course if you look you can cite studies that attempt to refute those studies, for verious reasons and motives.


 And I would like to see them and how they determined video games as a causal factor.

 Even showing a connection between them does not show video games causes an increase in violence.  Maybe its the attitudes that cause an increase in video game violence?  With Guns everywhere and the news telling everyone how scary things are, maybe that is more related and the connection to video games is just coincidental?

 Until some good studies are done there is nothing to support the argument that video games make people violent, and any attempt to do so has come up short.

 Video games are just an easy scape goat, but there are far bigger problems with society then video games...

 Besides every generation for 1000's of years has been taught violence through play, been taught there are certain groups that it is "ok" to kill.  Jews, Blacks, Communists, Barbarians, French, British, Nazi's, Japanese, North Koreans, etc.  The list goes on, all people that it has been taught as "ok" to kill.  Nothing has really changed...


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 5, 2005)

And then there's Japan. Most violent television programing in the world and the least actual violent crimes.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 5, 2005)

Well.I guess we dont need to stop polluting our environment because the research isnt extensive enough for us. I guess we dont need to worry about the unemployed, the poor, our healthcare system, or pick any related political topic, because, well, the research isnt extensive enough for us to really justify doing anything about it. We could go on, but we wont.

The point is that is a cop-out argument. Instead of actually looking into the studies that have been done in an objective fashion, it is much easier to put it on someone else to find it for you.to make someone else work for research that you arent going to accept as credible anyways regardless of how well done it is because it doesnt fit your world view. Cause, ya know, if worse comes to worse one can always just claim that there isnt enough research available or that what has been brought to the table lacks credibility (with no real proof to the claim other then contrarian ideals of course).

Well, that is a bunch of crap, and deep down you all know it. If you dont want to see things from a particular viewpoint, then it wont matter what research has been done, or what is right in front of your face.

However, for those who would like to be informed a little, you can start with this article where studies have been done specifically on video games, and where this is discussed:

http://www.killology.com/gitarticle.htm

Here is a highlight



> The development of the brain when you play the violent video games and the impact on the wiring of the brain when you play the violent video games is stunning," he said. "It's totally different from any other medium. Instead of being the passive receiver of human death and suffering, now you actively inflict it upon another human being.



.and another highlight



> For five-thousand years of recorded history, we've hit each other with wooden swords, but now when I play violent video games in a virtual reality--a hyper-reality--I blow my playmate's head off with explosions and blood countless thousands of times. Do I get in trouble? No--I get points," Grossman said. "This is truly pathological play. Adults can do it--adults can have pornography, tobacco, alcohol, guns, sex, cars, but this is another of those products that to put in hands of children represents a stunning abuse of that child and of our responsibility to protect children.



Or this article: http://www.killology.com/article_teachkid.htm

Highlights:



> Michael Carneal, the 14-year-old killer in the Paducah, Kentucky school shootings, had never fired a real pistol in his life. He stole a .22 pistol, fired a few practice shots, and took it to school. He fired eight shots at a high school prayer group, hitting eight kids, five of them head shots and the other three upper torso (Grossman & DeGaetana, 1999).
> I train numerous elite military and law enforcement organizations around the world. When I tell them of this achievement they are stunned. Nowhere in the annals of military or law enforcement history can we find an equivalent "achievement."
> Where does a 14-year-old boy who never fired a gun before get the skill and the will to kill? Video games and media violence.




For books, Grossmans On Killing and Stop teaching our kids to kill are good titles.

You could also do a search on Killology Research Group to learn more about the research and studies that this group has done on the subject of media (and specifically video games) and the effects on human psychology.

If you have some strange bias against Grossman, you could look up stuff by Dr. Whitney Grove Vanderwerff who is nationally recognized for his studies on media violence, and runs the NANP.

Or you could do a search on The Stanford Study in the archives of Pediatrics and Adolecent Medicine: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/

Or you could look into The Center for Successful Parenting and some of the stats there: http://www.sosparents.org/The Facts.htm

Or you couldwell.just do some research for yourself. 

That is as far as Ill go.YOU need to be responsible for YOUR own research instead of putting it on everyone else. The stuff is out there, and the studies have been very extensive.

And, for the 2nd or 3rd time I will say this for the benefit of those who cant get past their judgments: *I am in no way advocating that violent media be outlawed.* I am just advocating awareness. If one is aware of what the violent games they are playing is doing to there psyche, then one can adjust their outlook on these games to shield themselves from psychological harm, one can make different choices instead of vegging in front of violent media for hours on end, and one can actively do things to prevent those who are very psychologically susceptible to harm (like kids and teens) from playing these games.

Oryou can choose to ignore the research and facts that are out there and continue to make irresponsible choices. I guess that one is up to YOU.

Paul


----------



## ginshun (Jul 5, 2005)

I don't think the problem is the games themeselves, or adults playing them.

 The problem is irresponsible adults letting thier 12yo kid play a game that has a warning lable saying that it has mature content and is not inteneded for anyone under 17 (of 18, whatever is actually is, I'm not sure)


 The big problem is the vast majority of the people in charge, (those of about 40 and older) who neer played video games and still fail to realize that video games are not all made for kids.

 These are the same people that see games like Grand Theft Auto and go crazy because of what the games are "doing to our children".  Well, sorry buddy, but that game was never meant to be played by little kids.

 Just like your 12 yo was never meant to watch Natural Born Killers or Basic Instinct.

 Nobody gets mad when 200 people are killed over the course of an action movie, but they go nuts when they see a video game with comparable violence.  

 Horrible.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 5, 2005)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-0507040201jul05,1,4668835.story



> Scapegoating and finger-pointing are hardly the sole property of America in the debate over violence and its relationship to video games. Japan's vid industry is considering a self-imposed regulation program to limit the sale of mature-themed games to minors after the Japanese media linked a 15-year-old's slaying of his parents to his exposure to "Grand Theft Auto III." Most major players are on board, including Sony and Nintendo. The move is seen as a way to head off potential regulation from the Japanese government, which could be far more restrictive.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 6, 2005)

Grossman doesn't really fit the bill as an objective source. (By that, I mean that the APA -an objective source- doesn't agree with him.)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> And I would like to see them and how they determined video games as a causal factor.
> 
> Even showing a connection between them does not show video games causes an increase in violence. Maybe its the attitudes that cause an increase in video game violence? With Guns everywhere and the news telling everyone how scary things are, maybe that is more related and the connection to video games is just coincidental?
> 
> ...


So you're suggesting that the news has a link to violence, but not other violent media?  Seems like you might be cherry picking here. As for studies, see my next post.  It should give you plenty of APA material to try and discount in the name of maintain access to a product.  

I'm glad you mentioned nazis and the jews.  Just look at how useful propaganda was to indoctrinate hundreds of thousands of people to engage in genocide against jewish populations during WWII.  That was mostly speeches on TV, written propaganda and a few posters.  We've got a whole multi-media world going on now.  We can expose children to multiple sensory inputs in the name of violence enabling.  Funny thing is, though, at least the Nazis tried to direct the outcome.  We're just putting it out there and not even wondering what will happen. 



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> I don't think the problem is the games themeselves, or adults playing them.
> 
> The problem is irresponsible adults letting thier 12yo kid play a game that has a warning lable saying that it has mature content and is not inteneded for anyone under 17 (of 18, whatever is actually is, I'm not sure)
> 
> ...


 So you're saying that software companies do not purposely target pre-18 year olds for their product? Much in the same vein that cigarette companies do not purposely market to young teens? lol. 

Just as cigarette companies would go out of business in less than a generation without the below 18 customer, likewise the pre-18 market for games like Grand Theft Auto is far too significant for software companies to lose.

When i'm talking about media violence and it's effect, i'm not just referring to video games. Natural Born Killers and violent rap music are prime examples of not only extreme violence enabling products, but more importantly, violence devoid of any moral context or consequences. Extreme violence enabling is bad enough. Extreme amoral violence is infinitely worse.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Grossman doesn't really fit the bill as an objective source. (By that, I mean that the APA -an objective source- doesn't agree with him.)


I'm glad you mentioned the APA. Since you acknowledge your acceptance of the APA (and I would assume the AMA as well) as an objective source, you might want to look at these. 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/ab02.pdf
http://www.apa.org/releases/violentsongs.html
http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm
http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-10-06/media.html
http://www.actagainstviolence.com/specialtopics/mediaviolence.html
http://www.psychologymatters.org/mediaviolence.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/apa-cet030303.php
http://www.medpagetoday.com/tb/Psychiatry/GeneralPsychiatry/526
http://mednews.stanford.edu/releases/2001/janreleases/tvaggress.html
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13797.html
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=4754 
http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-11-03/pres11a.html

There's pleny more research where that came from.

Apparently the APA and the AMA doesn't agree with your characterization of their stand on the issue, and it has been the general concensus of it's members since the late 1970's that a causal link exists. If you believe them a reliable source, then you have lost this argument. The only other choice is to backtrack and attack the APA and AMA and their dozens upon dozens of cited studies supporting a direct causal link between media violence exposure to children and subsequent increases in real world aggression. 

The link is well established. The defense of media violence is seeming very reminiscent of the willful ignorance of cigarette smokers to the negative effect of cigarette smoking. I do not propose to ban violent video games from adult users. I would like to see a little more honest discussion on it's effect on children, however. 

You can, if you desire, find many sources that attempt to attack the idea that media violence has any correlation to real world violence. Much of it is based no more on an attempt to obfuscate the point. The best one i've read is the argument that "human behavior is too complex to make a conclusive argument that real world violence is effected by media violence". Well, that's a non-argument if I ever heard one. It's an attempt to by-pass the whole discussion in attempt to avoid having to deal with the mountain of evidence by simply dismissing it. 

Study after study shows a direct link. The question is, what do we do about it? Do I suggest banning violent video games? No, I do not. I do, however, suggest that we as a society have an obligation to determine a reasonable limit on that type of material. Just as most reasonable people believe that child pornography should be illegal (though a few crackpots will attack that idea as well), we must decide, as a society, where the limit is on certain types of media. 

Moreover, we have an obligation to determine what level of exposure is suitable to young children. What an adult can view without long term ill effects is no indication what will effect a child or teenager. The standard for what is acceptable for a pre-adult should be far different than that of adult members of society. 

If a 28 year old man wants to play Grand Theft Auto in his own home, I don't see that as a problem. However, what should society say about someone who exposes a 10 year old to that material? Would we be upset? What if that 10 year was exposed to pornographic material, should we as a society set a limit on that? 

The answers to these questions need to be more significant than simply dismissing the whole concept. If we don't care what the effects of violent media is on children, lets just say so and avoid the whole discussion. If we are apathetic and just want to make sure that we can pick up the next installment of GTA off the store shelves, and that is our only concern, lets be honest about that fact. I for one, however, am interested in a rational discussion about what to do about the obvious link between media violence and real world violence. Doing nothing is a choice, but we have to understand the potential consequences of that choice.


----------



## Yari (Jul 6, 2005)

I just read to two first links, and as I agree to not exspose material that children can't handle, I get the feeling they are placing the blame on the media, but pointing in a direction I feel is correct.

If you turn the logic around and say that parents that take responsability for their children and their outlook on life, this gives us the reason for children getting viliont over to much media onslaught is not the media but missing serious parent connection.

/Yari


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2005)

Yari said:
			
		

> I just read to two first links, and as I agree to not exspose material that children can't handle, I get the feeling they are placing the blame on the media, but pointing in a direction I feel is correct.
> 
> If you turn the logic around and say that parents that take responsability for their children and their outlook on life, this gives us the reason for children getting viliont over to much media onslaught is not the media but missing serious parent connection.
> 
> /Yari


Of course it's really no different than laying the entire blame of underage smoking and drinking on parents, while cigarette and alcohol companies reap HUGE profits by marketing their products in that direction. It's an easy cop-out for money making entities to blame parents while profiting. Not to say that parents don't share part of the blame, but when corperations set out to purposely sell those very children a product like this, they have to bear blame as well (despite the laughable protestations that they are NOT marketing these products to underage consumers). 

'Hook 'em young' has been the motto of tobacco, alcohol and media producers for decades. Very few smokers start smoking at or after the legal age of 18, and of those small minority that do, they smoke far less and quit more easily than those who start smoking at the more typical age of 13 or 14 (or even younger). It's 13 and 14 year old's that are the target age for lifetime smokers. Tobacco companies know this, and know that without targeting that group, they will go out of business eventually. 

Lousy parenting is part of the equation. That doesn't get corporations off the hook for profiteering off of lousy parenting.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course it's really no different than laying the entire blame of underage smoking and drinking on parents, while cigarette and alcohol companies reap HUGE profits by marketing their products in that direction. It's an easy cop-out for money making entities to blame parents while profiting. Not to say that parents don't share part of the blame, but when corperations set out to purposely sell those very children a product like this, they have to bear blame as well (despite the laughable protestations that they are NOT marketing these products to underage consumers).
> 
> 'Hook 'em young' has been the motto of tobacco, alcohol and media producers for decades. Very few smokers start smoking at or after the legal age of 18, and of those small minority that do, they smoke far less and quit more easily than those who start smoking at the more typical age of 13 or 14 (or even younger). It's 13 and 14 year old's that are the target age for lifetime smokers. Tobacco companies know this, and know that without targeting that group, they will go out of business eventually.
> 
> Lousy parenting is part of the equation. That doesn't get corporations off the hook for profiteering off of lousy parenting.


 :asian:


----------



## Yari (Jul 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Of course it's really no different than laying the entire blame of underage smoking and drinking on parents, while cigarette and alcohol companies reap HUGE profits by marketing their products in that direction. It's an easy cop-out for money making entities to blame parents while profiting. Not to say that parents don't share part of the blame, but when corperations set out to purposely sell those very children a product like this, they have to bear blame as well (despite the laughable protestations that they are NOT marketing these products to underage consumers).
> 
> 'Hook 'em young' has been the motto of tobacco, alcohol and media producers for decades. Very few smokers start smoking at or after the legal age of 18, and of those small minority that do, they smoke far less and quit more easily than those who start smoking at the more typical age of 13 or 14 (or even younger). It's 13 and 14 year old's that are the target age for lifetime smokers. Tobacco companies know this, and know that without targeting that group, they will go out of business eventually.
> 
> Lousy parenting is part of the equation. That doesn't get corporations off the hook for profiteering off of lousy parenting.



I get your argument for tobacco & alcohol, but I don't buy the "get the users to see violence, and they will consume more later on". Violence has always been a part of humanity. Even part of noraml daily entertainment/education.

The first argument was " does seeing violence on TV/games/movies enhance peoples level of violence."

My answer is "depends on how you relate to it", and that if you just leave your children to grow up without parenting, not matter what they see or experience they will become more violent. It's a theory that children that dont experince skin contact while they are babies, have greater tendacy to grow up with reduced social abilities. Even been speculated that this could a a major cause of pyscopates or sociopates (sp?).

So as I dont disagree with your argument that companies try and profit as much as they can. I think that it's a bigger resopnsability to be a parent than more people give it credit today. 

/Yari


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 6, 2005)

Yari said:
			
		

> I get your argument for tobacco & alcohol, but I don't buy the "get the users to see violence, and they will consume more later on". Violence has always been a part of humanity. Even part of noraml daily entertainment/education.
> 
> The first argument was " does seeing violence on TV/games/movies enhance peoples level of violence."
> 
> ...


 Add to that lack of contact violence enabling multi-media influences and you may produce a whole bunch of sociopaths.

At what point should companies be held responsible for profiteering on irresponsible parents, and making a bad situation far far worse for the sake of share-holder profits?


----------



## Yari (Jul 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Add to that lack of contact violence enabling multi-media influences and you may produce a whole bunch of sociopaths.
> 
> At what point should companies be held responsible for profiteering on irresponsible parents, and making a bad situation far far worse for the sake of share-holder profits?



I dont know. But I dont think the answer is as easy as the question put.
How much responsability are people to have over their own lives? And when are you allowed to decied when others can invade your way of life? What defines the correct way to live? Even if we hate violence, who says it's the "correct" way?

/Yari


----------



## Marginal (Jul 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Apparently the APA and the AMA doesn't agree with your characterization of their stand on the issue, and it has been the general concensus of it's members since the late 1970's that a causal link exists. If you believe them a reliable source, then you have lost this argument.



Yes, because the claim I was making (Grossman is unreliable as an objective source) is exactly the same thing as saying that there's no causal link between violence and violent media imagery. 

You nailed that strawman to the floor!

But still, people finding that aggressive thoughts become more likely when listening to aggressive music (something even the researchers admit is a precursor to aggression, and not a causal factor in violence) isn't even close to what Grossman is claiming. 

http://www.psych.org/public_info/media_violence.cfm

For example, this offers nothing on the increased link between violence and an interactive meduim. (A presumption that Grossman has been more than happy to assert for years with no supporting evidence.) Nothing in your links suggests that a definite linked to games being worse has been found. They're at the same place they were 5 years ago. 



> Borenstein told senators, "APA and AACAP are not suggesting that entertainment violence is the sole, or even the most important, factor contributing to youth aggression, antisocial attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors all contribute to these problems. A public dialogue, parental involvement, and clear information about media content through an effective rating system are key to enhancing the health and well-being of Americas children."


That also disagrees with Grossman's constant assertions. Granted, this was a press release, not any kind of a study, but still. I don't see this undermining the actual argument I put fourth.


----------



## Karushi (Jul 6, 2005)

This is my only thought... people who base there lives on a video game, movie, etc. and act out violence acorrding to such things deserve to live the rest of their lives in a dank cell! It's not the game's fault! It is entertainment and nothing more than entertainment! I play a lot of video games myself but it's not like I'm going to go around GTA style and kill people because I know the consequences (in fact I don't really like GTA). People who play games for the sake of killing are not worth being called gamers but mearly idiots who have deep seeded problem for which they should seek professional help. And parents who don't know about there 9-year-old kids spouting of curse words that would make a sailor blush, are even bigger idiots, much as he said.That was rant-a-licious!


----------



## ginshun (Jul 6, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So you're saying that software companies do not purposely target pre-18 year olds for their product? Much in the same vein that cigarette companies do not purposely market to young teens? lol.
> 
> Just as cigarette companies would go out of business in less than a generation without the below 18 customer, likewise the pre-18 market for games like Grand Theft Auto is far too significant for software companies to lose.


 Actually, no, I don't think that those games specifically target pre-18 year olds.  No more so than rated R movies of the same vein do anyway.  I will concede that video games inherently appealing to kids and there are plenty of things in games, besides the sex and violence that younger kids would be drawn to.  Therein lies the problem; the things outside of the sex and violence are usually what makes a game successful, not the sex and violence themselves.  This is evidenced by craptastic flops like State of Emergency, BMX XXX and PLayboy Mansion, full of sex and or violence, but abismal sales numbers. I honestly don't see a boardroom full of suits at Rockstar sitting around brainstorming ways to make the next GTA more appealing to 12 year olds.  The inherent problem is that the same things that make video games appealing to 25 year olds, make them appealing to 12 year olds.  How do you suggest the software companies go about making games that appeal to the post 18 crowd only?  It can't be done.

 Last time I checked it is the reatailers and parents who are putting these games in the hands of kids, not the software companies.  I am all for government holding retailers responsible for selling games to young kids, what I am not for is government telling game companies what kind of games they can and can't produce.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jul 6, 2005)

Yari said:
			
		

> How much responsability are people to have over their own lives? And when are you allowed to decied when others can invade your way of life? What defines the correct way to live? Even if we hate violence, who says it's the "correct" way?
> /Yari


People need to assume 100% accountablity/responsibility over their own lives... WHEN they reach the age to accept and carry that burden. Society is the one who usually dictates the age where a person's parent is no longer held accountable for the actions of their offspring. Our society says 18 is "legal (accountable) age or legal adult. For years my father told me that I would not be a man til I was 21... now at 43... I can see that he was right. 

A child in their pre-teens can assume responsibility for what they do and it increases as they get older. Having "chores" around the house and making sure they're done and doing homework and so forth helps them to increase their levels of responsibilty and become accustomed to the day to day things that adults do (go to work, etc.). If a mistake is made then the child should be punished to a level that they understand that whatever it was that they did wrong there's the consensquences of their actions in proportions. Of course some parents go way tooo far with this. ... Others not far enough. 

What defines the "correct" way? Society defines it. Our society which votes as a democracy says the speed limit is this and you go to jail for doing that and you can/cannot do this/that. Elsewhere it's either a socialist government or dictatorship or whatever type of government the people of that country want that will define the "correct way" to live within that society. 
Don't like how it's done then get into politics and change it. Otherwise get with the program. A good yardstick I've discovered, to where a society's values lie is reflected in the programming allowed on (non-cable) television. 40-50 years ago a _husband and wife _were never seen in the bedroom let alone IN bed and heaven forbid in the SAME bed. "I Love Lucy" is recorded as the first program/show that showed the husband and wife in bed (alibet they were twin beds) preparing to go to sleep for the night. Now-a-days nude love scenes are seen (though rarely graphic -- nipples, buttocks, hip movements, etc.) but one can rent/buy a video with all that. I recently watched a documentary on the making of "Casablanca" and they were talking about the censorship of the day. In one scene the lead male and female character (who was married to another man) were in the throes of a passionate embrace remembering their affair years before. They kiss passionately and the female asks to remember the way they were and it's fade to black then fade in with the male standing at the window (fully dressed) smoking a cigarette (a cliche if ever there was one). The documentary said that the audience is left to assume that the female is still getting dressed afterwards and that they had consumated yet another affair/fling.  Now-a-days you'll get the full effect and depending upon the director/studio you might get a B-grade level pornographic scene which is increasingly in many films.  Times are a changing huh? Same film (in relation to violence being discussed in this topic)... Bogie pulls a gun on the Nazi major, warns and threatens him. Eventually shoots him and the major winces and falls over presumably dead. No blood squirting out (front or back) not even a bullet hole in the uniform. Now-a-days ... well, you get the idea. 

Where does society start however? In the home obviously. How we conduct ourselves to those in authority over us... our parents. It also means how they conduct themselves (their authority) towards us (their children). Every household has a set of rules as dictated by the leading parent. Sometimes it's Dad that says what goes and sometimes it's mom and sometimes it's both (in agreement with one another). It's an outward spiral that extends to schools to work and eventually to government. But it all starts in the home. How well a child obeys the rules of the house will dictate (not always of course) how well they will obey the rules (laws) of society when they leave the house to have their own lives. Of course this also includes the influences of said child's learning. What information they pick up along the way and how that information is assimulated into their own individual psyche. Standards, morals, values should be set by the parents and those (imo) should be the type that will give *benefit* to the society that the child is growing up in. 
Learning to elude the police, shooting/beating up people for positive gain (point values) ... this will be a benefit and other examples that we've been discussion abound. 
Society is going to decide what our children can and cannot do/watch/see/play. The society begins at home.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 7, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, because the claim I was making (Grossman is unreliable as an objective source) is exactly the same thing as saying that there's no causal link between violence and violent media imagery.
> 
> You nailed that strawman to the floor!
> 
> ...


It certainly does not disagree with Grossman's claims. In fact, Grossman's claims parallel those of the APA since the mid-1970's. This is nothing new at all. I do appreciate your desire to force this argument on the shoulder's of one man (Grossman). It is far easier a fight for you if you can anchor this whole argument to that strawman. Fact is, however, Grossman is a minor voice among a large group of Psychologists and Doctors who disagree with your position.



			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Actually, no, I don't think that those games specifically target pre-18 year olds. No more so than rated R movies of the same vein do anyway. I will concede that video games inherently appealing to kids and there are plenty of things in games, besides the sex and violence that younger kids would be drawn to. Therein lies the problem; the things outside of the sex and violence are usually what makes a game successful, not the sex and violence themselves. This is evidenced by craptastic flops like State of Emergency, BMX XXX and PLayboy Mansion, full of sex and or violence, but abismal sales numbers. I honestly don't see a boardroom full of suits at Rockstar sitting around brainstorming ways to make the next GTA more appealing to 12 year olds. The inherent problem is that the same things that make video games appealing to 25 year olds, make them appealing to 12 year olds. How do you suggest the software companies go about making games that appeal to the post 18 crowd only? It can't be done.
> 
> Last time I checked it is the reatailers and parents who are putting these games in the hands of kids, not the software companies. I am all for government holding retailers responsible for selling games to young kids, what I am not for is government telling game companies what kind of games they can and can't produce.


 The software companies market to kids, that's no more of a surprise than the fact that cigarette companies do the same. Without the youth market, these software companies would not be able to compete. Willful ignorance to the contrary is not evidence.

As far as not marketing to children, they can try by not marketing their product right next to youth products on the shelf at wal-mart and other retailers. It's much like marketing Vodka in the candy section.

I understand many of you folks wish to maintain access to your favorite video games. That's fine, but that certainly isn't an argument against the effect of media violence on youth.



			
				Karushi said:
			
		

> This is my only thought... people who base there lives on a video game, movie, etc. and act out violence acorrding to such things deserve to live the rest of their lives in a dank cell! It's not the game's fault! It is entertainment and nothing more than entertainment! I play a lot of video games myself but it's not like I'm going to go around GTA style and kill people because I know the consequences (in fact I don't really like GTA). People who play games for the sake of killing are not worth being called gamers but mearly idiots who have deep seeded problem for which they should seek professional help. And parents who don't know about there 9-year-old kids spouting of curse words that would make a sailor blush, are even bigger idiots, much as he said.That was rant-a-licious!


 So your argument is there is no effect on a 9 year old playing GTA?


----------



## Karushi (Jul 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So your argument is there is no effect on a 9 year old playing GTA?


 A nine-year-old should not have GTA in the first place. Unless he is mentally aged enough to realize it is just a game. Like I said no one without the mental capacity to realize that is just a game deserves what they get for acting it out. It will get them out of the gene-pool hopefully.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The software companies market to kids, that's no more of a surprise than the fact that cigarette companies do the same. Without the youth market, these software companies would not be able to compete. Willful ignorance to the contrary is not evidence.


 Like I said, marketing, or designing games for 25 year olds and not for 12 year olds is impossible.  It plain and simply can't be done.  If you can think of a way, I would love to hear it, and I am sure I am not the only one.



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As far as not marketing to children, they can try by not marketing their product right next to youth products on the shelf at wal-mart and other retailers. It's much like marketing Vodka in the candy section.


 And take the rated R movies into there own little section, and take the playboy off the magazine rack, and take the cigarettes out of gas stations, and take CD's with explicit lyrics away from the other CD's and make the pay televition channels on a totally different system than the normal ones.

 Do all of these things actually sound reasonable to you?  If you are proposing the change in video games, then you should want it to follow through to the rest too, because there is no difference as far as I am conserned. 

 As far as the Vodka example goes, the liquor section at my local grocery store is within about 10 feet of the bakery section, but i don't hear anyone claiming Kettle One is marketing to children because the bottle is too close to the doughnuts.  I can also by candy bars at my local liquor store, oh the horror!





			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I understand many of you folks wish to maintain access to your favorite video games. That's fine, but that certainly isn't an argument against the effect of media violence on youth.


 I never argued that media doesn't have an effect on children, I am argueing that the people who produce/design the media in question are not the ones we should be blaiming, the people (parents) who put that media in the kids hands without even bothering to find out what it is.


 A parent who gives their 12yo kid a copy of GTA and then gets mad at Rockstar when they find out that the game is violent, is absolutely no different than a parent giving a kid a Hustler, and then getting mad at Larry Flint because it has naked chicks in it.  They should have known before hand what they were giving there kid.

 If parents actually paid attention to their kids instead of buying them a new video game to shut them up, none of this would even be an issue.


----------



## OUMoose (Jul 7, 2005)

:asian:


----------



## Karushi (Jul 7, 2005)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA that is very, deliciously funny!!! :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Marginal (Jul 7, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It certainly does not disagree with Grossman's claims. In fact, Grossman's claims parallel those of the APA since the mid-1970's. This is nothing new at all.



Actually, Grossman places a far greater emphasis on the effect of media violence than the APA does. The APA issued a press release shortly after Columbine which stated that kids that act out in that dramatic fashion tend to fit into a social pattern. 

1) They have a troubled home life.
2) They are ostracised by their peer group.

While Media violence may contribute to tendencies towards violence, the APA doesn't saddle the entertainment industry with all the nation's violent inclinations. 



> I do appreciate your desire to force this argument on the shoulder's of one man (Grossman).


I am arguing that Grossman is not a credible source. I am not stating that media violence has no impact on children.  



> Grossman is a minor voice


He's the poster child for the movement. He was the first to appear on 60 minutes and attack wicked games like House of the Dead as murder simulators (Which at the time, I thought was odd since that game operates exactly like Police training simulators. Definite bad guys, definite civilians that you must protect, or at least, not shoot etc... Didn't know cops were also murderbots.) immediately after Columbine. 



> The software companies market to kids, that's no more of a surprise than the fact that cigarette companies do the same.


This is a non-sequiter. First you're claiming that media violence is driving children to kill, now you're comparing video games to controlled substances?



> Without the youth market, these software companies would not be able to compete. Willful ignorance to the contrary is not evidence.


Willful ignorance? Sony's target demographic is 18-25 year olds. The twentysomething market is the primary group that purchases video games and video game systems. It has been for years. (NPD, TRST sales data backs this up) Nintendo actively targets children, and there's a marked disparity in the availability of violent games for Nintendo systems. 



> As far as not marketing to children, they can try by not marketing their product right next to youth products on the shelf at wal-mart and other retailers.



I see video games sold at Wal-Mart sitting in the electronics section locked in a glass case. They are next to a Siruis Satelite radio display on one end, and a wall of TV's on the other. On the other side, Wal Mart usually stocks AV components like cables, switchboxes etc. 

I don't recall ever seeing them sitting next to the toy section. (Perhaps this is just a fluke in Colorado?) 



> It's much like marketing Vodka in the candy section.


Or Penthouse on the same news stand as Archie's Double Digest?



> I understand many of you folks wish to maintain access to your favorite video games.


Moot since I'm too old for age restrictions to effect me either way. Just another way to poision the well. 



> That's fine, but that certainly isn't an argument against the effect of media violence on youth.


Well, neither was the whole marketing to children pseudofactoid. You brought it up anyway.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 8, 2005)

> I am arguing that Grossman is not a credible source.



Too bad that you haven't presented any evidence to disprove his credability...


----------



## Marginal (Jul 8, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Too bad that you haven't presented any evidence to disprove his credability...





> Instead of actually looking into the studies that have been done in an objective fashion, it is much easier to put it on someone else to find it for you.to make someone else work for research that you arent going to accept as credible anyways regardless of how well done it is because it doesnt fit your world view. Cause, ya know, if worse comes to worse one can always just claim that there isnt enough research available or that what has been brought to the table lacks credibility (with no real proof to the claim other then contrarian ideals of course).


Busy weighing how much time I wanted to waste. I knew that I was doomed from the start. 

Have you looked at the studies yourself? Compared them to what Grossman culls out of them? 

http://www.actagainstviolence.com/specialtopics/familyenviron.html

Doesn't mention media factors at all...

http://www.apa.org/apags/advocacy/warning.html

Odd that they seem to advocate parents talking with their kids as a violence prevention tool. Why do that, when they can solve everyone's problems by taking away Timmy's copy of GTA? 

http://www.psychologymatters.org/bullying.html

Ain't the bullies that are playing too much Doom. 

http://www.psychologymatters.org/shure.html
Hmm... Again, educating the kid seems to be more relevant to their violent tendencies than watching TV. 

Finally: "Psychological research confirms that violent video games can increase children's aggression, but that parents moderate the negative effects. "

'Cause when violence is contextualized, kids are less likely to adopt it as social learning. 

Seems to imply that kids aren't automatically turned into murderers when they sit down to play their "murder simulators". 

http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pcornell.html

Notice the profile of the kids that do elect violence. The summary does come down in the violence in media, (which is disturbing not because it does, but because it seems to be lamenting the fact that those kids aren't simply killing themselves like they used to do.) There is stuff seriously wrong with those kids. It was wrong well before they started playing violent games. Media influence may show them ways to act out, but they're self-destructive all on their own.  

This stuff bothers me not because I'm afraid violent video games, and movies will no longer be made, but because it's a reactionary response to a deeper societal problem that people seem unwilling to address. Grossman's great if you want band-aids.

I don't really disagree with you or sgtmac_46 in a lot of respects. Kids shouldn't be playing GTA. On the other hand, I also don't believe that taking GTA, Doom, Halo, House of the Dead, Mario Sunshine (Hey, Mario always exhibits aggressive and violent behaviour. Goes around stomping on people's heads...) away will solve the problems involved with youth violence.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 8, 2005)

Or better yet:

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/05/06/game_violence/

I'd also recommend Henry Jenkins of MIT as someone you should read before you declare Grossman objective. 

(Hopefully it's not all already dismissed as contrarian idears....)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 8, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Or better yet:
> 
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/05/06/game_violence/
> 
> ...


You seem to have missed the point. Instead of disproving that you were simply engaging in an ad hominem debate (i.e. making this about Grossman), you've simply confirmed that in your belief that if you attack Grossman, you defeat the argument. I never once cited Grossman, I did cite a large number of psychological studies on the subject. 

So attacking Grossman's objectivity is irrelavent, as I never brought him in to the this debate. You tried to build that strawman, not me. I have no desire to debate Grossman's credibility, as it is irrelavent to the topic. If you want to ignore that in favor of attacking Grossman, I don't really blame you. I wouldn't want to take on the unenviable task of dealing with the vast mountain of research on the subject if I were in your position either.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Busy weighing how much time I wanted to waste. I knew that I was doomed from the start.
> 
> Have you looked at the studies yourself? Compared them to what Grossman culls out of them?
> 
> ...


The one point you made that was excellent was "
'Cause when violence is contextualized, kids are less likely to adopt it as social learning. " That's almost entirely my point. It isn't just violence being displayed, what is more dangerous is violence displayed in a moral vaccum. The idea of violence for violence sake. If we propagate violence enabling media to children, devoid of any moral framework, what is the outcome? It is amoral violence that I feel is the biggest threat of games like GTA.

Unfortunately, saying that taking away violent amoral media from children won't stop youth violence is akin to the claim that taking away cigarettes won't stop all cancer. It's statement that is factually true, but devoid of context. As cigarettes contribute a great deal to the cancer problem, so, I believe, does amoral media violence contribute to youth violence. That is not to say that denying access of both to youth will solve both issues, but it will definitely go a long way to reducing the problem.  Trying to make this an all or nothing proposition (i.e., if media violence is ENTIRELY responsible for violence, it is not responsible at all) is disingenuous.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You seem to have missed the point. Instead of disproving that you were simply engaging in an ad hominem debate (i.e. making this about Grossman), you've simply confirmed that in your belief that if you attack Grossman, you defeat the argument.


Given that my question was about Grossman's objectivity, I'm not sure how this applies. (You also misdefined ad hominem, as I'm attacking Grossman's arguments, not Grossman.) In pointing out areas where the APA disagrees with Grossman while acknowledging that there is overlap between his statements and various reports issued by the APA, I'm not really attacking "the argument" (Which is... What exactly? "Video games are bad M'Kay"?) at all. 

You'd be better off not worrying about what you think I think I'm thinking and arguing against what's presented rather than against your perception of me. (Which is a convoluted way of pointing out that you've just engaged in an ad hominem fallacy) 

And before this spirals off into another irrelevant tangent, answer me this...

I've said I think home life plays a big role in youth violence. You have said the same thing. 
I've said I don't think kids should have access to mature rated games. 

Where we disagree is on the degree of media influence. (Well that, and I've actually seen demographics on the game industry's sales breakdown, which killed a little casual, uninformed fearmongering.) As long as we agree that the M/AO, 18+ games should not be sold to kids, I'm really not sure what your problem is. What is it, exactly?



> I never once cited Grossman, I did cite a large number of psychological studies on the subject.


Amazing. It's like I started arguing with you about Grossman out of the clear blue sky, when all you wanted to do was talk about Wal-mart... You got upset when Grossman's credibility was questioned. You presented evidence that Grossman and the APA were in lockstep agreement. I pointed out gaps. Now you're evidently begging off 'cause either you haven't read Grossman, or you can't reconcile the gaps. 



> So attacking Grossman's objectivity is irrelavent,


It is relevant when he's presented as an objective source. 



> as I never brought him in to the this debate.


Great. But I also don't remember quoting your post, or replying to a post even near one of yours in this thread when I questioned Grossman's objectivity. (It was in fact, a statement offered by Tulisian.) 





> You tried to build that strawman, not me.


If I had questioned Grossman's credibility in a direct response to your post, perhaps. As it is, assuming I was specifically arguing/disagreeing with you before you replied to me sets up a strawman. (Which means I don't have to waste further time on it.) 



> I have no desire to debate Grossman's credibility



And yet you did. 



> If you want to ignore that in favor of attacking Grossman, I don't really blame you. _(Ad hominem)_ I wouldn't want to take on the unenviable task of dealing with the vast mountain of research on the subject if I were in your position either.(_appeal to authority, probably a few others_)



You have at least two logical fallacies running wild in that block. That aside, hit up that Salon.com link before you cite "mountains of research".


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 8, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Given that my question was about Grossman's objectivity, I'm not sure how this applies. (You also misdefined ad hominem, as I'm attacking Grossman's arguments, not Grossman.) In pointing out areas where the APA disagrees with Grossman while acknowledging that there is overlap between his statements and various reports issued by the APA, I'm not really attacking "the argument" at all.


lol. It's interesting, as I never once mentioned Grossman except in my last post, and only then to point out the strawman you had created with Grossman, which you were attacking with several ad hominem attacks. I simply pointed out that Grossman is irrelavent to the argument. I don't recall the title of this discussion being "Grossman: Credible or not?" Since none of my argument is based on Grossman's credible on anything, then it really is irrelavent. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> You'd be better off not worrying about what you think I think I'm thinking and arguing against what's presented rather than against me.


 I'm not really sure what you're arguing about, other than whether Grossman is credible or not. As I could care less about Grossman's credibility, you win. Grossman isn't credible. Since none of my argument is based on Grossman, that really doesn't get you anywhere, except maybe a warm fuzzy feeling.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> You got upset when Grossman's credibility was questioned. You presented evidence that Grossman and the APA were in lockstep agreement. Really? You want to quote the statement I made where I was upset about you attacking Grossman or where I was defending anything Grossman said?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Marginal (Jul 8, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> lol. It's interesting, as I never once mentioned Grossman except in my last post, and only then to point out the strawman you had created with Grossman, which you were attacking with several ad hominem attacks.


Hmm... I said "Grossman's not an objective source" You said, "oh really?" and listed a bunch of press releases from the APA. 

Yep, you never engaged in discussion of Grossman before your last post... 



> I simply pointed out that Grossman is irrelavent to the argument. I don't recall the title of this discussion being "Grossman: Credible or not?" Since none of my argument is based on Grossman's credible on anything, then it really is irrelavent.


Strawman.

The actual discussion stands as this: I don't beleive kids should have stuff like GTA. I beleive that there are other factors at work spurring youth violence other than pure media influence. You have stated that you beleive that the parents should get involved. (Which would at least imply that you think the family has some influnece on a child's development.) 

If your argument hinges upon saying "I'm right. Look at Grossman. He's right, and therefore so am I. If you disagree, you're just being deliberately obtuse 'cause you know I'm right." Then your argument is threatened. 



> That could possibly be. However, if that were true, several of the previous sections of this post that you wrote are false. Such as trying to point out that I was upset with your attacking Grossman.


Not really sure how that follows. Either way, it begs the question, if you weren't upset/preturbed/annoyed about my question about Grossman, why did you take the time to go and dig up links from the APA site? 

Why are you still wasting time trying to discredit me if you have no need to argue the case further?



> You were or were not responding to me.


Asking about Grossman's credibility? I was not responding to you, and there's no contextual support that would lead anyone reading this thread to assume that I was. 



> Honestly, I have no desire to debate people.



Where's the smiley with the flagpole?



> As for the Salon.com link, I really don't see anything of substance in it, other than a smarmy hatchet job on Grossman. And, again, who cares. I'm not here to defend Grossman.



It does present an interesting track record on that "mountain of evidence" claim. 4 studies found a causal link 3 did not and 1 was inconclusive. That isn't an especially impressive mountain.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 8, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Hmm... I said "Grossman's not an objective source" You said, "oh really?" and listed a bunch of press releases from the APA.
> 
> Yep, you never engaged in discussion of Grossman before your last post...


 Back on Grossman again. Do you want to change the topic of this discussion to "Grossman: Credible or not?"? You might want to point out where I quoted Grossman as a source of anything. The only mention I made of Grossman was to point out that Grossman isn't really saying anything new, so he isn't the core of the topic you are arguing against. And I said "Oh really?" Where was that? lol. What I point out was Grossman is parroting a line that's been accepted by Psychologists since the mid-1970's, making Grossman hardly the source of discussion. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Strawman.


 Yes, another strawman on your ongoing pointless voyage to make the debate about Grossman. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> The actual discussion stands as this: I don't beleive kids should have stuff like GTA. I beleive that there are other factors at work spurring youth violence other than pure media influence. You have stated that you beleive that the parents should get involved. (Which would at least imply that you think the family has some influnece on a child's development.)


 Just as there are other factors that cause cancer other than asbestos and cigarette smoke, but I bet you wouldn't move in to a house lined with asbestos. Claiming that violent media isn't the only contributing factor is far from proving it isn't a factor at all. Logical fallacy alert. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> If your argument hinges upon saying "I'm right. Look at Grossman. He's right, and therefore so am I. If you disagree, you're just being deliberately obtuse 'cause you know I'm right." Then your argument is threatened.


 LMFAO. You obsession with Grossman continues. Since I haven't cited Grossman a source of anything, it appears the obsession is all yours. You're being deliberately obtuse because you insist on making this whole topic about a man who irrelavent to it. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Not really sure how that follows. Either way, it begs the question, if you weren't upset/preturbed/annoyed about my question about Grossman, why did you take the time to go and dig up links from the APA site?


 Because Grossman is irrelavent. It isn't Grossman making all those claims. Grossman is just a guy who was citing the research conducted by others, wrote a couple books and did a few interviews. He's not the leader of a vast conspiracy against your video games. Defeating him, does not refute the mountain of data developed by people that have absolutely nothing to do with Grossman. This is why they call ad hominem attacks and strawmen logical fallacies. 


			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Why are you still wasting time trying to discredit me if you have no need to argue the case further?


 Mostly because i'm bored. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Asking about Grossman's credibility? I was not responding to you, and there's no contextual support that would lead anyone reading this thread to assume that I was.


 You might want to go back and count how many times i've pointed that Grossman is irrelavent. Far from defending Grossman's credibility, i've tried to remind you that Grossman has very little to do with this conversation. 





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Where's the smiley with the flagpole?





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> It does present an interesting track record on that "mountain of evidence" claim. 4 studies found a causal link 3 did not and 1 was inconclusive. That isn't an especially impressive mountain.


 Ah, I see, you're trying to redirect my comment about "the mountain of evidence" to make it appear as if I was referring to Grossman. As I wasn't citing Grossman, that's another fallacy. The mountain of evidence consists of a large number of studies performed by members of the APA and AMA, none of the contributors of which are named "Grossman". What your Salon article was doing was attacking Grossman. Since none of the researchers were named "Grossman", it hardly qualifies as a rebuttal of their work, or anything else other than "Grossman".


----------



## Marginal (Jul 9, 2005)

Since the rest of your post is monkey poo throwing, I'll just respond to the one on topic question you raised. The article mentions that the "mountain of evidence" related to causal links between media consumption consists of four studies. Three other studies have found no link, one study was inconclusive. 

So independent of Grossman, regardless of whether he's objective or not, your "mound of evidence" consists of four manilla folders. This is directly threatening "the argument", not Grossman.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 11, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Since the rest of your post is monkey poo throwing, I'll just respond to the one on topic question you raised. The article mentions that the "mountain of evidence" related to causal links between media consumption consists of four studies. Three other studies have found no link, one study was inconclusive.
> 
> So independent of Grossman, regardless of whether he's objective or not, your "mound of evidence" consists of four manilla folders. This is directly threatening "the argument", not Grossman.


That's funny, Grossman had nothing to do with the large numbers of studies since the 1970's (well over 5000 in fact) showing a direct link between media violence and aggression in children and teenagers. Hardly "four manilla folders". 

As far as "monkey poo throwing" (lol), I don't believe i've engaged in any. I did point out that most of your argument consisted of attacking Grossman's credibility which, as I pointed out (that must be the poo throwing part) was entirely irrelavent to the discussion. It is the position of the AMA, APA, National Institute of Mental Health, and many others, that a clear cut direct causal link between media violence (including violent video games) and real world violence exists. I'm not surprised that you would prefer to attack Grossman than to deal with this declared position of several prominent organizations of experts on the subject. 

This official, stated position, has been made clear on the part of the AMA in front of congress http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13797.html

and the APA in front of congress http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-10-06/media.html

The weight of evidence is in favor of a causal link and has been for nearly 3 decades. This isn't news and is the psychological equivalent of proving the world isn't flat.  Only the most willfully obtuse can claim that the evidence does not exist.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 11, 2005)

Are we arguing about video game violence and its affect on kids or whether or not Grossman is a credible source of info on it?

 Personally I think that if you have never played video games, and you don't know anyone who play video games, then your opinion means squat when it comes to evaluating there effects on people. 

  That statement is not meant to be directed at anyone in particular, just throwing it out.

  I don't care how many studies a person has read.  Studies turn out however the people funding them want them to turn out.  I have no doubt that I could conduct a study that concludes that violent games have no effect on kids and I could do another one showing that they do.  I personally doubt that many of the studies are objective, but who really nows?



 That statement is not meant to be directed at anyone in particular, just throwing it out.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 11, 2005)

It's now a very Grossman-centric discussion. I'll say this for the guy--he gets people talking!


----------



## Marginal (Jul 12, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Are we arguing about video game violence and its affect on kids or whether or not Grossman is a credible source of info on it?


Depends largely upon how badly you need to distance yourself from irrelevant rants about Wal-Mart, controlled substances, and rabid fearmongering. (Grossman for all his 'objectivity' routinely feels the need to regress into panic inducing fearmongery himself. Which is how the phrase "murder simulator" came into existence, and how it was then applied to games like Virtua Cop.)



> I don't care how many studies a person has read.  Studies turn out however the people funding them want them to turn out.  I have no doubt that I could conduct a study that concludes that violent games have no effect on kids and I could do another one showing that they do.  I personally doubt that many of the studies are objective, but who really nows?



Not much of a brow-furrower if you read the studies. Many of the ones finding 'direct' links between violence and TV watching involve stuff like showing kids an episode of Power Rangers, and then checking the "violent" box every times the kids throw a punch or kick at the air in imitation afterwards. Evil killbots forward!

Hate to seem those same studies applied to a MA class.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 12, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Depends largely upon how badly you need to distance yourself from irrelevant rants about Wal-Mart, controlled substances, and rabid fearmongering. (Grossman for all his 'objectivity' routinely feels the need to regress into panic inducing fearmongery himself. Which is how the phrase "murder simulator" came into existence, and how it was then applied to games like Virtua Cop.) .


 lol, here we go with Grossman again.  You seem to be a broken record on this topic.





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Not much of a brow-furrower if you read the studies. Many of the ones finding 'direct' links between violence and TV watching involve stuff like showing kids an episode of Power Rangers, and then checking the "violent" box every times the kids throw a punch or kick at the air in imitation afterwards. Evil killbots forward!


 If Power Rangers causes kids to kick the air, what do you think video games simulating the murder of police officers and the murder of prostitutes will do for them.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Hate to seem those same studies applied to a MA class.


 By the way, I got your negative rating post, Marginal, and I found it amusing.  And yes, it was well over 5,000 studies since the mid-1970's.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 13, 2005)

Not that I expect a straight answer, but where pray tell, did you come by that particular figure? 

Incidently, the ding wasn't really for the 5000+ figure. It was for all the tangental rambling. (Least I signed it.)


----------



## ginshun (Jul 13, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If Power Rangers causes kids to kick the air, what do you think video games simulating the murder of police officers and the murder of prostitutes will do for them.


 Apperently you are implying that since watching people on TV fighting makes kids punch and kick the air, that if they watch people killing cops and prostitutes on TV that they will then follow suit and go out and start killing cops and prostitutes.

 A bit of a jump in logic (if you can even call that line of thinking logic) if you ask me, but believe what you want I suppose.  Personally I think kids are a little smarter than that.

 Do kids in your town get the urge to kill cops and army soldiers after they watch the eavening news?  If so, remind me to stay away from your town.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 13, 2005)

It also comes down to intent. The kids were imitating the Power Rangers, but they were just punching and kicking air. They weren't doing anything violent in of itself, and they had no violent intent. If the kids got more excited while watching the show, well, that's a violent mark as well. If they shout, there's another mark in the violence column. All this is presented as "proof" of violence being directly caused by media consumption while there's no emotional context allowed for.  

Strikes me as odd. (incidently, this was a study that Liberman's darling group, Media in the Family engineered)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 15, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Not that I expect a straight answer, but where pray tell, did you come by that particular figure?
> 
> Incidently, the ding wasn't really for the 5000+ figure. It was for all the tangental rambling. (Least I signed it.)


 I don't avoid direct answers, you must be thinking of someone else. 

First of all:
[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]*D.P. Phillips DP. "The impact of Mass Media Violence on U.S. Homicides." American Sociological Review 48 (1983):560 68.*
Since 1950 more than 2500 studies have attempted to discover whether mass media violence triggers additional aggressive behavior . . . This paper presents what may be the first systematic evidence suggesting that some homicides are indeed triggered by a type of mass media violence. . . . This paper has presented evidence which suggests that heavyweight prize fights provoke a brief, sharp increase in homicides. [/font]

That was 2500 studies PRIOR to 1983. You can do the research to determined how many studies have been conducted on the topic in the last 22 years. It's clear that it's considerably more than 2500. 

"[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Over the past half century, about 5,000 studies are estimated to have been done on the issue of television violence ." http://www.bitscape.info/research/screen_2i.htm[/font]

So I let you decide how many more than 2500 studies have been conducted on the topic. However, it is clear that it wasn't worthy of a negative reputation point to dispute a statement that i'm fully capable of supporting. 

As far as tangental rambling is concerned, you seem to understand that topic intimately. Is that why you have your User comments disabled, too many comments about YOUR tangental ramblings? Amusing, if nothing else. 


			
				ginshun said:
			
		

> Apperently you are implying that since watching people on TV fighting makes kids punch and kick the air, that if they watch people killing cops and prostitutes on TV that they will then follow suit and go out and start killing cops and prostitutes.
> 
> A bit of a jump in logic (if you can even call that line of thinking logic) if you ask me, but believe what you want I suppose. Personally I think kids are a little smarter than that.
> 
> Do kids in your town get the urge to kill cops and army soldiers after they watch the eavening news? If so, remind me to stay away from your town.


I didn't say "Watch" I said fantasy and simulate those acts, repeatedly. There is no jump in logic to believe that the repeated simulation of that behavior has an effect. It seems a jump in logic to believe that spending hours upon hours simulating and fantasizing about those activities has NO effect. Kids are obviously NOT smarter than that, as evidenced by the wide range of behavior engaged in by "kids" as a group, far in excess to other members of the population. That's why "kids" die at far higher rates doing things like drinking and driving and engaging in violence. It's also why young males are the most violent group on the planet. Don't think kids can be purposely or accidentally indoctrinated to violence? 

I do note your attempt to lump all violence together. That seems to be a trend in this discussion. You view the evening news, reporting of violent activity, as being the same as a game where the point is to fantasize and simulate the active engagement of violence on other human beings, most specifically on police officers and innocent people. The belief that that kind of game has no effective is a rather limited and self-serving one. 




			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> It also comes down to intent. The kids were imitating the Power Rangers, but they were just punching and kicking air. They weren't doing anything violent in of itself, and they had no violent intent. If the kids got more excited while watching the show, well, that's a violent mark as well. If they shout, there's another mark in the violence column. All this is presented as "proof" of violence being directly caused by media consumption while there's no emotional context allowed for.
> 
> Strikes me as odd. (incidently, this was a study that Liberman's darling group, Media in the Family engineered)


 Of course there is a big difference between Power Rangers and shooting cops, slapping and murdering prostitutes and robbing people. Seems that certain people are always wanting to lump all violence together, in order to dismiss the most mundane media violence as being harmless, and hence by proxy, all media violence as harmless.

I have to wonder how harmless we would decide a game was where the purpose of which was to hunt down minorities, maybe called "Klansman".  I personally would find such a notion revolting, but I also believe these type of things have some power to influence people.  Those who believe there is no adverse effect caused by such things would find it difficult to make an argument against the marketing of such a game.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 16, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I don't avoid direct answers, you must be thinking of someone else.


Nope. Irrelvant tangents and character assassanation are not direct answers. 



> First of all:
> [font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]*D.P. Phillips DP. "The impact of Mass Media Violence on U.S. Homicides." American Sociological Review 48 (1983):560 68.*
> Since 1950 more than 2500 studies have attempted to discover whether mass media violence triggers additional aggressive behavior



Ah. So what % found any correleation? Oh, the provided info merely says that studies were performed and says nothing about the results. Hmm. 



> This paper presents what may be the first systematic evidence suggesting that some homicides are indeed triggered by a type of mass media violence.


Wow. 2500 studies and this guy's *may* be the first? Impressive. So the previous 2500 studies were unsuccessful in finding any link at all... Interesting.



> This paper has presented evidence which suggests that heavyweight prize fights provoke a brief, sharp increase in homicides. [/font]


increased ice cream sales has a correlation with increased suicide rates. 



> That was 2500 studies PRIOR to 1983.


Yep, and your source just discredited all of them.



> You can do the research to determined how many studies have been conducted on the topic in the last 22 years.


Moot since I don't care how many studies have been conducted. I care about how many of them  found a link. So far, you've provided evidence of *one* possibly producing a causal link. 



> It's clear that it's considerably more than 2500.


Still not the issue. 



> "[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Over the past half century, about 5,000 studies are estimated to have been done on the issue of television violence ."


Uh, yeah. Again this just says studies have been conducted. There's no information at all that even one of them found a causative link. (Which I will now remind you, was your claim.) We just know there have been a lot of them. 


[





> So I let you decide how many more than 2500 studies have been conducted on the topic. However, it is clear that it wasn't worthy of a negative reputation point to dispute a statement that i'm fully capable of supporting.



You haven't supported any aspect of your real argument yet. You presented the 5000 number as proof that TV causes violence. You have not supported this implication in the least. 



> Is that why you have your User comments disabled, too many comments about YOUR tangental ramblings?


Nope. Just dislike anon rep dings. 



> Of course there is a big difference between Power Rangers and shooting cops, slapping and murdering prostitutes and robbing people.


Wierd 'cause you made no such distinction last post...



> I have to wonder how harmless we would decide a game was where the purpose of which was to hunt down minorities, maybe called "Klansman".


Manhunt was basically an interactive snuff film. Sold poorly. Seems like the free market's fairly efficient at self-policing garbage.

Incidently, there are Klansman style games out there already. Have been since the days of the Nintendo Entertainment System. Lots of kook underground stuff floating around. (Not to mention Custer's Revenge, even older and made by a mainstream studio)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 16, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. Irrelvant tangents and character assassanation are not direct answers.


 Nice try, but nobodies attacked your  character.





			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Ah. So what % found any correleation? Oh, the provided info merely says that studies were performed and says nothing about the results. Hmm.


 Nice try.  You challenge my numbers, and when they are found to be TRUE, then you try and up the standard to cover up for your error.  Typical. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Wow. 2500 studies and this guy's *may* be the first? Impressive. So the previous 2500 studies were unsuccessful in finding any link at all... Interesting.


 Irrelavent.  I don't care what one individual claims.  Your comment (and your negative points) were based on your assertion that my claim of 5000 was unsupportable.  Now that i've supported it, you're trying to change the subject.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> increased ice cream sales has a correlation with increased suicide rates.


 Correlation and direct causal link are two different things, which is what the study showed.  Further, I'll challenge you to support your assertion that ice cream sales have a correlation with increased suicide rates.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Yep, and your source just discredited all of them.


 My source didn't discredit any of them.  The source was solely a source for the number of studies.  His personal opinions are irrelavent, and do not discredit thousands of studies by merely commenting on them after stating how many have been performed.  Again, and attempt to change the subject. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Moot since I don't care how many studies have been conducted. I care about how many of them found a link. So far, you've provided evidence of *one* possibly producing a causal link.


 Not moot, since your issue was with the number of studies.  Now that I have dealt with that issue, you decide to alter the standard.  Further, numerous studies show not only a correlation, but a direct causal link.  It's a typical debate tactic when faced with a mountain of evidence, to simply declare it, in total, moot.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Still not the issue.


 It's the issue you made. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Uh, yeah. Again this just says studies have been conducted. There's no information at all that even one of them found a causative link. (Which I will now remind you, was your claim.) We just know there have been a lot of them.


 I've listed several of those studies and their conclusions.  I have NOT listed all 5000 studies.  You were not formerly aware of the number of those studies, as evidenced by your comments earlier.  Now that I have shown the shear volume of those studies, you simply seek to dismiss them all in total, as opposed to dealing with their individual results.  The AMA and APA, however, after prolonged review of those studies have concluded that a direct causal link exists between media violence and real world violence.  Again, you are not arguing against merely me, but the AMA and APA, and group of people far more able to determine WHAT a study shows than you or I. 


[



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> You haven't supported any aspect of your real argument yet. You presented the 5000 number as proof that TV causes violence. You have not supported this implication in the least.


 I presented the 5000 number as evidence of the number of studies conducted on the issue, to show that the APA and AMA aren't making their decisions based on a couple of studies.  The APA and AMA (among many other peer groups) have come to the conclusion that clear evidence of a direct causal link exists between media violence and real world violence, and further, they came to that conclusion in the late 1970's.  You aren't arguing against me, you are arguing against the vast majority of the behavioral scientific research on the issue.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. Just dislike anon rep dings.


 I'm sure you do. I dislike dings at all, especially those that purport to have been because I made an unsupportable claim...which I subsequently supported.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Wierd 'cause you made no such distinction last post...


 Apparently you haven't been paying attention, because I have made that point numerous times during this thread.  I have stated, over and over again, that there are degrees of violence, and violence devoid of any moral framework is the most dangerous.  Amoral violence, especially when coupled with sexual themes, are the most dangerous for children to be exposed to.  So THIS claim of yours is actually the weird one.  Go back and read my previous threads, in case you missed that point.  Though I think you already know this.  I further think you are simply changing the subject again, as even you can't support the idea that you suggested...i.e. that all violence is the same.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Manhunt was basically an interactive snuff film. Sold poorly. Seems like the free market's fairly efficient at self-policing garbage.


 Sold poorly based on it's game play.  GTA, on the other hand, has sold well.  Slickly packaged amoral violence is a dangerous endeavor.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Incidently, there are Klansman style games out there already. Have been since the days of the Nintendo Entertainment System. Lots of kook underground stuff floating around. (Not to mention Custer's Revenge, even older and made by a mainstream studio)


 So you're saying you have no problem with any of that?

In short, it's not the fact that many people wish to maintain access to violent media at all costs.  If that's the decision of the public, fine.  I'm libertarian on many issues, and I can see the argument here as well.  However, what I take exception to is the intellectual dishonesty to maintain, in the face of mounting evidence, that these media are harmless to children and teenagers.  The evidence is clear.  If we choose to ignore that evidence in the name of maintaining access to this kind of media, then lets at least be honest about why we are doing so.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Nice try, but nobodies attacked your  character.


You've questioned the motives of anyone who doesn't think video games are a monolithic influence on the youth culture. (Hey, don't listen to them, they just don't want their video game yanked off the shelf!)



> Nice try.  You challenge my numbers, and when they are found to be TRUE, then you try and up the standard to cover up for your error.  Typical.


Nope. I questioned your claim that there was a mountain of evidence linking violence to media consumption. I pointed out the Salon.com article that stated "4 studies have found a link, 3 studies have found no link and one study was inconclusive." You responded with 

"There is a mountain of evidence. 5000 studies."

5000 studies with no known conclusions isn't evidence in your favor. It's just a number. Completely meaningless.



> Now that i've supported it, you're trying to change the subject.


Fine. You never claimed the studies said anything one way or another on the link between youth violence and media consumption. So... Uh, why again were you making the point at all? 



> Correlation and direct causal link are two different things, which is what the study showed.  Further, I'll challenge you to support your assertion that ice cream sales have a correlation with increased suicide rates.


Why was the study on boxing even wasting time proving that correlation and causation were different things? That's statictics 101 kinda stuff.

As is the ice cream example. The correlation is well known. There is no direct link however. (Both ice cream sales and suicides can be attributed to high temperatures during the summer. The heat's the causal link of both unrelated phenomona.)



> His personal opinions are irrelavent, and do not discredit thousands of studies by merely commenting on them after stating how many have been performed.


*You don't even know the results of those studies.*  As you do not, they cannot be provided as proof of a causal link. (Which is again, how you presented the 5000 number in the first place.) 



> Not moot, since your issue was with the number of studies.


Nope. I said only 4 studies had found a direct causal link. You responded with, "5000 studies prove otherwise".

Except they don't. Hence your problem. 



> Now that I have dealt with that issue, you decide to alter the standard.


Lovin' that irony. 



> Further, numerous studies show not only a correlation, but a direct causal link.


Yep. I already said as much. There are 4.



> It's a typical debate tactic when faced with a mountain of evidence, to simply declare it, in total, moot.


If you were merely mentioning the 5000 'cause it was an impressive number, you can't then also present it as evidence towards your argument when you have also claimed that you never said that it was intended to be used as evidence in your argument. 



> I've listed several of those studies and their conclusions.  I have NOT listed all 5000 studies.


Doesn't matter since you don't know if the sutdies supported your preferred conclusion or not. 



> You were not formerly aware of the number of those studies, as evidenced by your comments earlier.


No, I was mainly wondering why you mentioned them, and how they were supposed to prove your point. As it turns out you got the number from a study that makes no mention of the findings of any of those studies (except to say that 2500 of them found no link) I don't thik the 5000 number has any meaning to the argument at all. 



> I presented the 5000 number as evidence of the number of studies conducted on the issue, to show that the APA and AMA aren't making their decisions based on a couple of studies.


Yes, but without any information on the conclusions of those studies (LInk, no link, inconclusive etc) you're not offering anything remotely useful. You could have 4,000 studies demonstrating there's no link at all. You don't know one way or another, and your provided source doesn't cast at least half of them in a light that's helpful to your argument. (Since his was the only one that actually found a link.) 



> The APA and AMA (among many other peer groups) have come to the conclusion that clear evidence of a direct causal link exists between media violence and real world violence, and further, they came to that conclusion in the late 1970's.


Yes, but you have not demonstrated that more than 4 studies have actually demonstrated such a link. That's the problem. You provided proof of one study that successfully claimed a link (then you also went and discredited the source later, so I'm not sure if you think the source was valid or not regardless.) I've provided evidence of the existence of 4 studies that find a direct link, and 3 that find no link. You've provided 1 that claims to have found a link (at last!) which you may ot may not beleive was credible. (Since you refuse to beleive the claim that the 2500 studies found no link, I don't know why you would claim that you trust his perception in that one respect, but in no others.)



> You aren't arguing against me, you are arguing against the vast majority of the behavioral scientific research on the issue.


I may or may not be doing so since you don't know if that 5000 number has any meaning to your argument. I'll worry about the majority of the findings when there's some evidence presented that there *was* a majority acheived on those findings. Let me know when you get the breakdown on which of those studies found a correlation, which found no correlation, and which failed to arrive at any conclusion at all. Then I'll worry about arguing against the great majority. (Assuming of course, that the media violence causation findings are actually in your favor.)



> I dislike dings at all, especially those that purport to have been because I made an unsupportable claim...which I subsequently supported.


Wake me when you actually do.  Anon rep dings tend to be way more annoying though. Stuff like an unsigned rep ding 30 point rep ding "Take it to email guys". Is that supposed to be a mod warning? Why wouldn't a PM suffice? Why not sign it so it actually means something rather than generate even more of the abhorred ranting? I just don't know. (I make it a personal policy to ignore such missives in the least constructive way since they're so uselessly passive-aggressive. Since I ignore them, or at least actively take the advice the opposite direction, I disabled the function to discourage such nambypambyism.) 



> I further think you are simply changing the subject again, as even you can't support the idea that you suggested...i.e. that all violence is the same.


"Originally Posted by sgtmac_46
If Power Rangers causes kids to kick the air, what do you think video games simulating the murder of police officers and the murder of prostitutes will do for them." A kneejerk glib response yes, but it still accomplished exactly what you claimed you have never done in this thread.   



> In short, it's not the fact that many people wish to maintain access to violent media at all costs.


Even though you shrilly make this claim every time someone raises a viewpoint differing from your own?



> If that's the decision of the public, fine.  I'm libertarian on many issues, and I can see the argument here as well.  However, what I take exception to is the intellectual dishonesty to maintain, in the face of mounting evidence, that these media are harmless to children and teenagers.  The evidence is clear.


Again, let me know when you actually know *what* the evidence is saying. 

4-3-1 isn't overwhelming evidence. (Since that's the only concrete number I've found on findings in valid studies, I'll continue to use it.)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 17, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> You've questioned the motives of anyone who doesn't think video games are a monolithic influence on the youth culture. (Hey, don't listen to them, they just don't want their video game yanked off the shelf!)


 Your motives are irrelavent.  The problem, however, is your transparently disingenuous manner of trying to make your point. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. I questioned your claim that there was a mountain of evidence linking violence to media consumption. I pointed out the Salon.com article that stated "4 studies have found a link, 3 studies have found no link and one study was inconclusive." You responded with
> 
> "There is a mountain of evidence. 5000 studies."
> 
> 5000 studies with no known conclusions isn't evidence in your favor. It's just a number. Completely meaningless.


 The known conclusions are very clear according to the APA and AMA and other peer review bodies.  They are only unclear to you a few other contrarians.  Again, you're not arguing with my conclusions, you're arguing with theirs.  You said "4 studies have found a link, 3 studies have no link and one study was inconclusive", what about the other 4000 Plus studies the APA and AMA keep referring to.?



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Fine. You never claimed the studies said anything one way or another on the link between youth violence and media consumption. So... Uh, why again were you making the point at all?


 What I said was that the APA and AMA (among others) came to the conclusion after reviewing those studies that a direct causal link exists.  You haven't shown any evidence to refute that claim.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Why was the study on boxing even wasting time proving that correlation and causation were different things? That's statictics 101 kinda stuff.


 A link very clearly understood by the peer bodies of the APA and AMA.  I would venture a guess they understand it far better than you or I, and their conclusion is that a large volume of evidence exists to show causation.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> As is the ice cream example. The correlation is well known. There is no direct link however. (Both ice cream sales and suicides can be attributed to high temperatures during the summer. The heat's the causal link of both unrelated phenomona.)


 Again, this is pure smoke and mirrors.  The APA and AMA haven't declared a correlation, they have stated that a direct causal link exists.  So your analogy is nothing but an attempt to change the subject.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> *You don't even know the results of those studies.* As you do not, they cannot be provided as proof of a causal link. (Which is again, how you presented the 5000 number in the first place.)


 Your argument consists solely of raising the bar beyond the ability to discuss the subject in this forum.  Your ficitious argument is that since I cannot give you the results of all 5000 studies, they are all invalid.  Again, that is a false argument.  The APA and AMA have reviewed those studies and concluded a direct causal.  I have, further, shown several primary source documents showing the APA and AMA's stand on the issue.  You attempt to raise the bar beyond the point of absurdity serves no real purpose but to obfuscate the issue. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Nope. I said only 4 studies had found a direct causal link. You responded with, "5000 studies prove otherwise".
> Except they don't. Hence your problem.


 According to the APA and AMA the bulk by far of the total evidence shows a direct causal link.  Hence your problem.  Hence your problem.  That is why you wish to reduce the issue to four studies.  It's a typically attorney trick.  If there is a large amount of evidence against your side, simply direct everyone's attention to a specific peice of evidence you think you can defeat.  Then, when you form an argument successful against that one shred of evidence, declare your self victorious against the whole thing.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> If you were merely mentioning the 5000 'cause it was an impressive number, you can't then also present it as evidence towards your argument when you have also claimed that you never said that it was intended to be used as evidence in your argument.


 I mentioned it because this was the evidence the APA and AMA was pointing to when it said that the vast majority of the evidence pointed to a direct causal link.  Again, your attempt to dismiss the evidence is transparent.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter since you don't know if the sutdies supported your preferred conclusion or not.


 I early listed several of those studies.  However, we are back to your argument that, since I haven't listed all 5000 studies, they are moot.  I have shown this to be disingenous and false.  The fact is that the APA and AMA have reviewed these studies and concluded, fairly strongly, that they point to a direct causal link.  I HAVE given you links to primary source documents showing their public conclusions.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> No, I was mainly wondering why you mentioned them, and how they were supposed to prove your point. As it turns out you got the number from a study that makes no mention of the findings of any of those studies (except to say that 2500 of them found no link) I don't thik the 5000 number has any meaning to the argument at all.


 Nowhere did anyone say that 2500 found no link.  The APA concluded in 1983, after some 2500 studies having been conducted, that a direct causal link existed.  Since then research has only strengthened that conclusion.  My reason for mentioning the 5000 is that this is the number of studies, not 4, that have been conducted and referred to by the APA and AMA.  You don't have to deal with 4 studies, you have to deal with 5000.  I have not seen any evidence presented by you showing that these studies are not valid.  The APA and AMA believes they are not only valid, but show a direct causal link.  If you have evidence to the contrary, present it.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, but without any information on the conclusions of those studies (LInk, no link, inconclusive etc) you're not offering anything remotely useful. You could have 4,000 studies demonstrating there's no link at all. You don't know one way or another, and your provided source doesn't cast at least half of them in a light that's helpful to your argument. (Since his was the only one that actually found a link.)


 The APA and AMA concluded that the vast majority of these studies show a link.  They have said so, I have provided a link where they said so.  You are not attempted to build a strawman.  I say again, you are arguing with the conclusions of the APA and AMA (Which I have linked), not my conclusions.  You're only attempt now is to deal with the vast amount of evidence by attempting to build doubt based on the fact that I have not listed all 5000 studies.  The APA and AMA have reviewed all of them, and they have declared that the vast majority show a direct causal link.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Yes, but you have not demonstrated that more than 4 studies have actually demonstrated such a link. That's the problem. You provided proof of one study that successfully claimed a link (then you also went and discredited the source later, so I'm not sure if you think the source was valid or not regardless.) I've provided evidence of the existence of 4 studies that find a direct link, and 3 that find no link. You've provided 1 that claims to have found a link (at last!) which you may ot may not beleive was credible. (Since you refuse to beleive the claim that the 2500 studies found no link, I don't know why you would claim that you trust his perception in that one respect, but in no others.)


  Again this cheap debate tactic.  If the evidence is against you, try and narrow down the evidence so you can defeat it (i.e. narrowing down the discussion to 4 studies, not 5000).  What you are arguing against is the APA and AMA conclusion about this evidence.  If you have some evidence to suggest that they are mistaken, present it.  Otherwise, you are engaging in a disingenuous argument.  You have a problem that peer review bodies have found these studies to not only be valid, but rather decisive in their conclusions.  If you have evidence to present, then present it.



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> I may or may not be doing so since you don't know if that 5000 number has any meaning to your argument. I'll worry about the majority of the findings when there's some evidence presented that there *was* a majority acheived on those findings. Let me know when you get the breakdown on which of those studies found a correlation, which found no correlation, and which failed to arrive at any conclusion at all. Then I'll worry about arguing against the great majority. (Assuming of course, that the media violence causation findings are actually in your favor.)


 You seem to have a rather broken record on this topic.  I have to wonder if it might be your last stand.  I've presented evidence that the vast majority show a causal link.  Several peer review bodies, including the APA and AMA, agree that the vast majority show a causal link.  If you have evidence to show that they are mistaken, present it.  Again, your attempt to raise the standard (i.e. I have to list each and every one of the 5000 studies, and their conclusion) is irrelavent.  If you have issue with any of those 5000 studies, which the APA and AMA have reviewed, then present them now.  You've discussed 4.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Wake me when you actually do. Anon rep dings tend to be way more annoying though. Stuff like an unsigned rep ding 30 point rep ding "Take it to email guys". Is that supposed to be a mod warning? Why wouldn't a PM suffice? Why not sign it so it actually means something rather than generate even more of the abhorred ranting? I just don't know. (I make it a personal policy to ignore such missives in the least constructive way since they're so uselessly passive-aggressive. Since I ignore them, or at least actively take the advice the opposite direction, I disabled the function to discourage such nambypambyism.)


 I got the same one.  On this we agree.  

"Originally Posted by sgtmac_46
If Power Rangers causes kids to kick the air, what do you think video games simulating the murder of police officers and the murder of prostitutes will do for them." A kneejerk glib response yes, but it still accomplished exactly what you claimed you have never done in this thread. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Even though you shrilly make this claim every time someone raises a viewpoint differing from your own?


 I make this point because it is very clear.  The argument that all violence is equal, so we'll only discuss the most mundane violence, and call it a discussion about other kinds of violence, is a bit disingenuous.  Tell me how the Power Rangers correlate to rape and murder? 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> Again, let me know when you actually know *what* the evidence is saying.


 I already know what the evidence is saying.  The APA and AMA have made it very clear.  If you have evidence that they are mistaken, then provide it. 



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> 4-3-1 isn't overwhelming evidence. (Since that's the only concrete number I've found on findings in valid studies, I'll continue to use it.)


 Again with this false argument.  The APA and AMA have made their conclusion.  If you have evidence that those studies are in error, provide them, in detail, on each one.


----------



## Marginal (Jul 17, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Your motives are irrelavent.  The problem, however, is your transparently disingenuous manner of trying to make your point.


I'm pretty sure my manner's sincere.  



> What I said was that the APA and AMA (among others) came to the conclusion after reviewing those studies that a direct causal link exists.  You haven't shown any evidence to refute that claim.


There's no evidence presented to refute. It's just an abstract number. 



> A link very clearly understood by the peer bodies of the APA and AMA.  I would venture a guess they understand it far better than you or I, and their conclusion is that a large volume of evidence exists to show causation.


Impossible to tell without a breakdown of the findings. 



> Your argument consists solely of raising the bar beyond the ability to discuss the subject in this forum.  Your ficitious argument is that since I cannot give you the results of all 5000 studies, they are all invalid.


My argument is that the 5000 number is meaningless since it doesn't give any hint or insight into the actual results. 



> Again, that is a false argument.


Yep. (Kinda why I didn't make it. )



> According to the APA and AMA the bulk by far of the total evidence shows a direct causal link.


Until you can demonstrate that Salon's article was wrong, I'm not too worried.



> That is why you wish to reduce the issue to four studies.


Not really. 4 studies is still 4 studies showing a link. Doesn't really reduce the issue to any signifigant degree. 3 studies have demonstrated no link, that still weights the argument in favor of the media consumption irreparably corrupts outliers conclusion. 



> I mentioned it because this was the evidence the APA and AMA was pointing to when it said that the vast majority of the evidence pointed to a direct causal link.


The 5000 number is still meaningless until the results of those studies are known. (Heck, I'd settle for a pie chart.) 



> However, we are back to your argument that, since I haven't listed all 5000 studies, they are moot.


Still nto my argument. I'm saying the 5000 number is meaningless until you've established the context. 

Saying 5000 studies have been done, and since the APA took media consumption's side, then they must've come up with at least a 51% isn't a very strong argument. 



> I have shown this to be disingenous and false.


Cool. Another strawman on the stack.



> Nowhere did anyone say that 2500 found no link.


Your own source said exactly that. "2500 studies had been conducted, but this study is the first to determine a direct link." That's 2500 gone.



> The APA concluded in 1983, after some 2500 studies having been conducted, that a direct causal link existed.


Apparently off one study in that case.



> My reason for mentioning the 5000 is that this is the number of studies, not 4, that have been conducted and referred to by the APA and AMA.


At least we know the results of the 4. We don't know what the goal of any of the studies were, or what their general conclusions were. 



> You don't have to deal with 4 studies, you have to deal with 5000.


Nope. I don't even know if those 5000 concluded that there was a direct link. No actual evidence has been supplied to support that assertion. You've just speculated that it must be the case. 



> I have not seen any evidence presented by you showing that these studies are not valid.


The Salon.com article said just that. The source you provided said the same. Not quantity, but quality in this case. 



> The APA and AMA believes they are not only valid, but show a direct causal link.


All they said is that 5000 studies have been conducted in a set period of time. Doesn't say what the results were.

To suggest this is evidence is absurd. It's like saying "5,000 articles were written on president Bush." Therefore, we know he's a good president because he was voted into office. 



> You seem to have a rather broken record on this topic.


Just want you to answer the question rather than evade it. (Or at least, understand why it totally fails to work as evidence.)



> I have to wonder if it might be your last stand.  I've presented evidence that the vast majority show a causal link.


Nope. You've consistently failed to do just that. 



> Several peer review bodies, including the APA and AMA, agree that the vast majority show a causal link.


Mere assumption.

   I got the same one.  On this we agree.  



> "Originally Posted by sgtmac_46
> If Power Rangers causes kids to kick the air, what do you think video games simulating the murder of police officers and the murder of prostitutes will do for them." A kneejerk glib response yes, but it still accomplished exactly what you claimed you have never done in this thread.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know. How does playing GTA correleates to murdering police officers? Well, no such link has ever been established, but hey, if kids mime Power Rangers, obviously they'll murder officer Bill if you simply switch the input. By your reasoning, apparently punching air = stabbing a cop. Only difference is the media content. No differences in scale at all. (Seems a skosh insincere to me personally.)


----------



## TonyM. (Jul 18, 2005)

People have been using these silly arguements since the three stooges  hit the airwaves. Apparently people cannot teach their children the difference between right and wrong and need to blame it on something else.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 18, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> People have been using these silly arguements since the three stooges hit the airwaves. Apparently people cannot teach their children the difference between right and wrong and need to blame it on something else.


 Talk about hitting the nail on the head.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 18, 2005)

Very often it isn't that they can't--it's that they simply won't. They're "too busy" to impart that kind of advice to their kids. They count on the schools to do it!


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 18, 2005)

How many studies show a correlation between Disney cartoons and "Deaths caused by dropped anvil on the head"?

 5000 studies without results is absolutely meaningless.  Politics seems to determine the "official line" more then actual results anyways.  But Statistics is numbers, no numbers = no statistics.

 Violent play has always, and will always be a part of being human.  It's in our nature, and every other animal on the planets nature.  Does this mean 8 year olds should be playing GTA?  No, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be either.

 Personally I think they shouldn't be, its not developed for them, and the game (not just the content) is well over there heads.

 So lets blame Santa Claus.  Yes, thats right, I said Santa Clause.  Why? Because kids seem to be having trouble distinguishing real people from fantasy characters, and he is the most notorius one.  Makes sense doesn't it?

 Did Zorro promote attacking local authorities? Lots of kids have dressed up as Zorro and weilded plasitc swords?  How about Robin Hood?  Kept stealing from the gov't and sticking arrows in its representives...

 Stop teaching the American Civil war in school too.  Opressed group of people taking up arms and liberating themselves from a gov't that abbused them.  Don't want that...

 Monoply (the game) should be banned too, white collar crime such as non-competitive business practices are bad too.

 It's hard to imagine how all this fuss gets kicked up about games.  Any mentally healthy adult should be able to distinguish fantasy from reality.  Young kids?  Well, the industry has self-impossed a ratings system, parents (the ones with the money that actually buy the games) are just ignoring it.  But if parents started buying XXX movies for there kids, would the producers be getting blaimed for making them?

 Where is John Cleese to declare this thread silly?


----------



## Kempogeek (Jul 18, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> People have been using these silly arguements since the three stooges  hit the airwaves. Apparently people cannot teach their children the difference between right and wrong and need to blame it on something else.


Im the first to admit that Im not the sharpest tool in the shed but when I first saw the stooges on tv back in grade school, I knew it was all make believe. It never entered my mind to pull those stunts on my younger brother. I took it as funny and left it at that. Growing up I was an arcade rat. I play the auto racing games the most but also did some shoot 'em ups. One of my all time faves was "T2 Judgement Day". There was one level where you shoot at a SWAT team in the lab. I never had the urge to go shoot at police. I knew that it was just make believe. So I have to credit my parents to raising me right. Besides I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of my dad's belt. If I was on the receiving end, it was because I deserved it. BTW, I still believe in Santa. I love Xmas and in this world we need something to make us happy and for me one of them is Santa.....Steve


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jul 19, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> How many studies show a correlation between Disney cartoons and "Deaths caused by dropped anvil on the head"?
> 
> 5000 studies without results is absolutely meaningless. Politics seems to determine the "official line" more then actual results anyways. But Statistics is numbers, no numbers = no statistics.
> 
> ...


 Again, let me make this very plain. The 5000 studies conducted, according to the APA and AMA, clearly point to a direct causal link to real world violence. That is what is clear. The attempt to distort the nature of those 5000 studies is a false argument, that being that the 5000 studies are not all listed. I presented evidence showing the APA and AMA's conclusions based on those 5000 studies, and those peer review organizations stated they clearly showed a causal link. I see nothing in that statement to suggest that those 5000 don't "Have a result". The APA and AMA clearly outlined that result. If anyone has any evidence that the APA and AMA is in error, lets hear it. This silly statement that these 5000 studies don't have any result is clearly false. The APA and AMA after reviewing studies came to a clear concensus, and that is that they point to a direct causal link. 

Further more, you are come to a conclusion about what I am saying that is far different from what I am actually saying. Nowhere did I suggest banning this type of material. Alcohol has a clear direct causal link to health problems. I do not suggest banning alcohol. We do, however, restrict it's access to certain segments of our society. Cigarettes, the same thing. What i'm suggesting is that clear scientific evidence exists to show a direct negative effect of extreme media violence on young people. What we do with that information is open debate. However, to deny that an effect exists is a bit myopic.



			
				Kempogeek said:
			
		

> Im the first to admit that Im not the sharpest tool in the shed but when I first saw the stooges on tv back in grade school, I knew it was all make believe. It never entered my mind to pull those stunts on my younger brother. I took it as funny and left it at that. Growing up I was an arcade rat. I play the auto racing games the most but also did some shoot 'em ups. One of my all time faves was "T2 Judgement Day". There was one level where you shoot at a SWAT team in the lab. I never had the urge to go shoot at police. I knew that it was just make believe. So I have to credit my parents to raising me right. Besides I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of my dad's belt. If I was on the receiving end, it was because I deserved it. BTW, I still believe in Santa. I love Xmas and in this world we need something to make us happy and for me one of them is Santa.....Steve


 The fact that you were able to engage in those activities without long term effect is not evidence that they are entirely without effect.  Not everyone that smokes cigarettes gets cancer, nor does everyone who is exposed to asbestos gets lung diseases.  The risk, however, is clear, and a direct causal link exists between them and disease.  

Even though asbestos isn't universally deadly, I don't think you'd be willing to move in to a house contaminated with it, would you?  

Sure good parents have something to do with it.  The knowledge that a direct causal link between media violence and real world aggression exists, however, is helpful to good parents in making decisions about what to expose their children to.  If we didn't let parents know that lead based paint was dangerous, wouldn't we be doing people a disservice?  The same with media violence.  If it is clear that the evidence suggest a direct causal link, it would be wrong of us not to let people know it.  What they do with that knowledge is their business.


----------



## ginshun (Jul 19, 2005)

I don't think that anyone is all out denying that a link beween voilent media and violence in kids/people exists.  I am not at least.  At the very least it is easy to see that as a society we are very desensitized to violence.

 The point I am making is that threre *ALREADY IS* a system in place to notify people (parents) of the violent and or sexual content contained in video games.  Its called ratings, and it works just like movies.  Parents noramally don't buy porno flicks or ultra violent movies for there 12 year old to watch, because they know what movie ratings are all about.  Once a few parents get it through there thick skulls that an M stamped onto a game box is the same as an R stamped on a DVD box, this should really be a non issue.

 I am not really sure what else anyone expects to be done that isn't already being done.  Short of government regulation of the media in question, and I am pretty sure that is not the answer.

 People (parents) need to take responsibility for themselves and their kids, and not blame video games and movies for the problems their kids have.


----------

