Violence in video games.

[Cruentus]

I am arguing that Grossman is not a credible source.

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

 

[Marginal]

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]

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]

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....)

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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?

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

Since I didn't list him as a source, you've accomplished nothing.

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 statemtn offered by Tulisian.) If I had questioned Gorssman'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 of your own.

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. So which is it? You were or were not responding to me. Honestly, I have no desire to debate people. Fact is, Grossman's credibility is not an issue to me, though you seem to have spent quite a lot of energy attacking it. Why?

And yet you did.

?

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".

There seem to be more than enough logical fallacies going around. 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.

 

[Marginal]

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]

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.

Strawman.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Where's the smiley with the flagpole?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Marginal]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

Nice try, but nobodies attacked your character.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Still not the issue.

It's the issue you made.

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.


[

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.