This isn't one of my stupid topics. Well maybe you think it is, but its not. I want to know what your views are on video games and violence. Jack Thompson is an idiot. he believes that video games can DRAMATICALLY change a kids life. It cant, it can slowly, and very minimally change the psyche. But so can seeing a guy fall off his bike, or seeing some guy smash his car into a tree in funniest home videos. LETS BAN IT ALL MOTHER F******!!! But think about this
Michael Moore: Do you know that on the day of the Columbine massacre, the US dropped more bombs on Kosovo than any other day?
Marilyn Manson: I do know that, and I think that's really ironic, that nobody said 'well maybe the President had an influence on this violent behavior' Because that's not the way the media wants to take it and spin it, and turn it into fear, because then you're watching television, you're watching the news, you're being pumped full of fear, there's floods, there's AIDS, there's murder, cut to commercial, buy the Acura, buy the Colgate, if you have bad breath they're not going to talk to you, if you have pimples, the girl's not going to fuck you, and it's just this campaign of fear, and consumption, and that's what I think it's all based on, the whole idea of keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume
Should we ban TV. No. Will we ever? Possibly in the UAE (joke) but i highly, HIGHLY doubt it. And remember that Law and Order SVU episode where the (i know, i forget everything) psychiatrist tells us that Video Games only fill in the void of an already mentally ill child. But this brings on the argument of, "well, video games are making these kids more psycho than they already are! wont someone please think of the children." concernec parent no.1. But think about this for a while. ESRB. Thats right, that funny little sign on the box of a video game isnt just there for decoration you know!
http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htmIt shows it all. I couldnt quote it because you really must see the graphs.
"Children learn how to deal with relationships by what they see on TV. They see people having casual sex and using obscenity-laden language... I don't see how it could possibly be good for kids." - Faye Steuer, professor of psychology at Charleston College (Charleston Post and Courier, August 25, 2005)
Well, casual sex isn't exactly bad in the eyes of democracy, now is it? Obscene language? i learnt that shit at school
"We played the game by day and lived the game by night." - an anonymous, incarcerated Oakland, Calif., gang member who says he and his friends used the Grand Theft Auto games as a kind of virtual reality training. His gang has been linked to car thefts and at least seven murders. [Reader's Digest, 8/05]
This just scares me, and contradicts what i said, but if anyone knows anything about, please comment
And there is this, which is bad
As Griffiths (1999) found in his research, although there are many studies examining the effects of video game and aggression, these studies seem to focus mainly on the possible short-term aggressive effects. However, we did find one study that looked at the long term affects of video game play on people, but it was not related to violence. Instead, it looked at the relation between video game playing when young and gambling when old (Griffiths, 1991). This shows a possible relationship between activities when young and their consequences on adult behavior. Further studies on the long-term effects of video game violence and its users are need.
The observational studies looking at children's free play tended to show that children do become more aggressive after either playing or observing a violent video game. At a theoretical level, these evidences suggest empirical data supporting the social learning theory. As others have cautioned, the validity and reliability of the procedures used to measure aggressions should be questioned (Griffiths, 1999; Cooper & Mackie, 1986).
The limiting conditions under which video games may have an affect that were considered were gender, age, and class/level of education. With regards to gender, although few studies looking at the differential effects were found, the study mentioned above suggests that females are more affected by video game violence than males. One hypothesis for this difference was suggested by Cooper and Mackie, that inexperience with video games led to greater arousal. Another possibility may be that since males have been found be have more experience with video games, they may have become more desensitized to the violence than females. Once again, more research is necessary to draw conclusions on the differential effects of video game violence on gender.
When age was look at it was discovered that age played no significant part in determining if a player was affected by the content of video games or not. The difference of age showed up in the manifestation of its affect. Herz (1997) introduces an interesting explanation of this increase in aggressive behavior of children. A large number of the studies involved adolescent children; these children are at an age when they are naturally violent, aggressive and moody. So when put in a situation with increased agitation like many of the studies involved, increases in aggressive behavior may be natural regardless of stimulation. While this particular situation is not true of older students the method of study does need to be questioned.
The effects of education levels and economic class have not yet been looked at, possibly due to a lack in conclusive evidence showing a overall relation.
or as simpson could put it
Roger Meyers Jr.: In preparing for this debate, I did a little research, and I discovered something astonishing. There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented
So u may say, Zeppelin u ass, stop quoting cartoons. But simpsons IS a satire, and this is quite an "old" episode so it does have some back philosophy to it.
http://gr.bolt.com/articles/jack/jack.htm
This is just hilarious
Hopefully i dont get sued >.>
This is too good to simply link too.
http://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299
I wrote:
I found a link to your site, www.stopkill.com, through an online forum. I looked over it, and although I think that there is some genuine concern over the effect of violent media on kids, many of your statements on that site were made in ignorance. What I plan to do in this email is to help you gain a better understanding of video games, and to show you that while your intentions are good, your current course of action is a mistake. I'm going to present my arguments calmly and logically, and you're welcome to write a rebuttal if you wish. First off, let me tell you a little about myself. I'm 14, and I've been playing video games avidly since I was 8. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the subject of video games as a whole, and I've played my fair share of Halo 2 and other shooters, including the Ghost Recon series, which is regarded as one of the most realistic FPSs (first-person shooters, in case you aren't familiar with the terminology). I also enjoy strategy games, in which the death toll is often far higher than what you'd encounter in a FPS. I'm an archer, a martial artist (Tae Kwon Do), and I was taught how to operate a gun by my grandfather, who's an experienced hunter. And, oddly enough, I've never felt the urge to kill, or even seriously injure, anyone. I imagine that killing in self-defence would be extremely difficult for me, despite my alleged desensitization. Now I'd like to dismiss a misonception (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you're twisting the truth) you have about games like Halo, which are called FPSs. These are not "sniper games." They are games presented in first person, in which you shoot enemies, manage ammunition, and explore levels. You may fail to see the distinction between "sniper" and "first person" based on that description alone, but if you ever take the time to play any of these games, you'll understand that there is no comparison between playing a FPS and operating a rifle. Which brings me to my next point- games can't accurately "train" you to commit violent acts, despite your claims. First off, games are innacurate by their very nature, and they give you less practical knowledge on operating firearms than watching a few hours of History Channel would. Secondly, I'm going to walk you through a typical scenario of me playing Halo 2, which is probably the best FPS available right now1) I rotate the right control stick slightly, then hold down the right trigger. There is no violent intent towards my enemy, wether it's an AI-controlled bot or a human opponent I'm facing online- it's a simple challenge in the case of the former and a friendly competition in the case of the latter.(2) On screen, a series of polygons which emulate bullet trails appear. Those polygons collide with the polygons rendered to represent my enemy, and those same polygons then emulate my opponent dying.The important distinction here is that there is no gun, no bullets, and no enemy. There is a rotation of the control stick and a pull of the controller's trigger, resulting in a change of the onscreen display. Anyone who can't see the difference between this and the act of firing a gun at a human being is clearly unfit to be playing these games and, frankly, is an idiot. Which, once again, leads me to the next point I'm going to make. No one in their right mind would ever do the things that you blame on video games. A quick glance at such actions shows that there are far bigger, far more serious causes than violent media behind them. Now, you may wonder, "Why would someone kill a person in a video game if they think it's wrong to do in real life?" Well, the truth is, no one gets hurt when you kill a video game character. There are corporeal consequences to commiting acts of violence on real living things, but the difference is that real living things are just that, real. Well, that's my case against your Anti-Violent Games crusade. I support efforts to get parents more informed about the type of games their kids are playing, but it doesn't take some kind of genius to look at the back of the box of the game your kid wants to buy. If that doesn't tell you enough, there are many popular, respected websites that can give parents reliable information on the content of games. There is no evil conspiracy to turn America's youth into killers going on here- developers are people too. It should be noted that any federal interference with the video game industry would go down in my book as a violation of freedom of speech, which is something I dissaprove of under all circumstances. PS: On the topic of the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas, I get the feeling that you don't know what a mod is. Mods are code written by third parties, which adds to or modifies the game code, thereby adding or changing gameplay features. Also, you should keep in mind that this game is rated Mature(17+), and it's clearly displayed on the box that GTA contains sexual content, so any parent who walks in on their kid playing Hot Coffee shouldn't be at all shocked, in my humble opinion.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Of course they can train you to kill. The games suppress the inhibition to kill, which is why the military uses them for that purpose. Thanks for writing.
I wrote:
That's a half-truth. The games used by the military are not the same as the games available to the public, and they're far more akin to simulators than to entertainment systems. There is only one game that I know of which was used by the military and is now available to the public, Full Spectrum Warrior, and the civilian version was modified for faster gameplay and improved graphics. Things such as making the grenades go off quicker, for example, to give it more pick-up-and-play, entertainment value. Even then, anyone can tell you that killing in a game is not at all comparable to killing in reality, because killing in a game is, in fact, not actually killing.Flight simulators aren't used to suppress the inhibition to fly, they're used to give the pilot-in-training technical skills needed to operate a plane. The military uses video games in the same way.
Jack Thompson wrote:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/15/news_6129301.html
I wrote:
Well, I'll admit defeat on Hot Coffee issue, but my point about violence still stands. I'd hardly call that article an effective rebuttal to my statements. And just for the sake of debate, let's hypothetically say your theory is true, and violent games do indeed reduce the inhibition to kill. Does that neccessarily mean that a gamer would have any more desire to kill? It would simply remove a roadblock for someone who already has violent urges and tendencies, caused by other, more serious factors, would it not? A rational, peaceable person who's inhibition to kill was reduced still would lack the violent urge to even contemplate murder.
Jack Thompson wrote:
In the UK an M game can't be sold to a minor, which is the only restriction I seek here. Smarten up. Your ignorance is showing.
I wrote:
Oh, really? Seems to me that you're attempting to draw negative attention to a major game company, spread false information that suggests that violent media creates killers, and continually changing the subject during this discussion. I'd like to bring your attention to the replies you allegedly sent to a few other gamers who have emailed you:
"I am not interested in 'gamer's thoughts,' as that constitutes the latest oxymoron." "Screw off" These are people who I have never known to lie, especially on matters of politics. Perhaps you're being so curteous to me because you don't want Mommy and Daddy upset? Don't worry about that, Mr. Thompson, because I like to fight my own battles. You're spreading ignorance, taking advantage of others' misfortunes, attempting to destroy a well-established industry, and using technicalities to evade my arguments, which you seem to be incapable of refuting. Your two-faced, ambulance-chasing nature is showing. If you want to convince me otherwise, respond to my arguments instead of changing the subject. I'm not as naive as you think.
Jack Thompson wrote:
check into the nearest mental health facility
I wrote:
Mental institution? Whatever for? Did I hit a soft spot with that last email? That reply had a clear tone of finality to it, but you haven't gotten rid of me yet. Personally, I enjoy verbally destroying your "beliefs" and watching your petty attempts to shut out the truth. So, tell me... what exactly are your motives for professing these beliefs that you make no effort to defend? Really, I'm curious. I've never understood how people like you find it so easy, so satisfying, to uphold beliefs that aren't your own. That clearly aren't your own. If you want to insult me, find something witty next time. Being called insane isn't very deragatory, nor is it very clever. PS: I was going to include a joke pertaining to me allegedly having no inhibition to kill, but as you are a lawyer I opted against anything that could be considered a threat in even the most liberal terms.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Not interested.
I wrote:
Well, I've had fun antagonizing you. Also, I think I should tell you that I've posted this entire conversation on a public forum. You're unlikely to garner any support from my little corner of the web.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Post that, junior.
I wrote:
With pleasure. I know some people who'd get a real kick out of it.
Jack Thompson wrote:
I bet you do. While you gamers are all autostimulating yourselves with hopefulness that all of this is going nowhere, I'm in the current Reader's Digest and working with US Senators. You all ought to be concerned.
I wrote:
Reader's Digest? How ironic that they once had an article poking fun at frivolous lawyers. Funny ol' world, ain't it? Well, you never know what crazy things politicians will do, but if people critically examine your viewpoints as I have, then I doubt that you'll get far. A great deal of disdain towards you is growing in the gaming community, and there are a LOT of voting-age gamers in this country. Who are some of the senators you're currently talking to? I think I'd like to contact them as well.
He hasn't responded since the last e-mail I sent him.
Hell, ban video games. But wouldnt that mean we would have to ban books like Catcher In The Rye or moives like A Clockwork Orange by the god Kubrick (i am aware it is based on a book by Burgess)
To quote the imaginary GWB in my head:
Those kids must be stopped. Ass companies like Rockstar are...are turning them into monsters! These kids are turning the good, wholesome streets of America into blood...streets. Now where's Dick Cheney? I want to fire some more nukular bombs at black Iraqis
[/img]
