Violence in video games.

[Marginal]

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]

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.

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.?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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 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?

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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]

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.