Absolute Wuss

[Cranky Old Man]

I'm done. This is beyond pointless. Either get off your high horse and debate in an orderly fashion or just admit defeat.

What "orderly fashion"? There is no "orderly fashion" if you don't accept science, experts, credibility, proof, or knowledge.

Simply saying "I'm right" doesn't mean you are. Don't say: "This book tells you how I am right", you tell me how you are right.

You know, books can actually be reliable sources of information as well.

Is it universally acceptable that violence has a major impact on all youths?

What, is that what the "orderly fashion" is for you? Populism? "The majority is always right."?

No, because I was a youth exposed to violence and I have no relevant mental illnesses. Either that means I (and basically everybody who is not insane) defy your precious science that must be true, or you are full of shit.

I didn't say that everybody goes violently insane. They go violently insaner, often in ways that isn't apparent right away, and they last person who can tell whether they have gone violently insane or not, is the person who's gone violently insane. You're not credible, because you can't see how far gone you are.

[Bridge]

What "orderly fashion"? There is no "orderly fashion" if you don't accept science, experts, credibility, proof, or knowledge.

You know, books can actually be reliable sources of information as well.

What, is that what the "orderly fashion" is for you? Populism? "The majority is always right."?

I didn't say that everybody goes violently insane. They go violently insaner, often in ways that isn't apparent right away, and they last person who can tell whether they have gone violently insane or not, is the person who's gone violently insane. You're not credible, because you can't see how far gone you are.

1. a) Show me how it is scientific that virtual violence makes you violent. b) Believe it or not, the education system in most countries is totally broken, being more about memorizing useless information and less about having real insight into the topics you are supposedly learning. I said it before and I will say it again: just because you have something that says you know what you're talking about does not mean you really do. c) Same point. d) So far you have done nothing but tell us where the supposed truth is to be found and telling us to go find it ourselves. Newsflash, that's not how debating works. You give me the points you want to use to support your position and I will consider them. Don't tell me I should believe it because somebody else told you that someone who may or may not know what they are talking about wrote it down and published it. e) Knowledge? Come on, now you really need to get off that high horse of yours.

3. I already said I don't advocate argumentum ad populum; did you even read my fucking post?

[Cranky Old Man]

What "orderly fashion"? There is no "orderly fashion" if you don't accept science, experts, credibility, proof, or knowledge.

You know, books can actually be reliable sources of information as well.

What, is that what the "orderly fashion" is for you? Populism? "The majority is always right."?

I didn't say that everybody goes violently insane. They go violently insaner, often in ways that isn't apparent right away, and they last person who can tell whether they have gone violently insane or not, is the person who's gone violently insane. You're not credible, because you can't see how far gone you are.

1. a) Show me how it is scientific that virtual violence makes you violent.
b) Believe it or not, the education system in most countries is totally broken, being more about memorizing useless information and less about having real insight into the topics you are supposedly learning. I said it before and I will say it again: just because you have something that says you know what you're talking about does not mean you really do.

Well, in this case, the information is a scientific study, and even if it's done with dancing monkeys, the burden of proof probably lies on you now. Show me a paper that says that realistic video game violence doesn't desensitize people.

c) Same point.

Oh, that point. I refute it with this point. I mean point c). ...on page 2.

d) So far you have done nothing but tell us where the supposed truth is to be found and telling us to go find it ourselves. Newsflash, that's not how debating works.

Really? Prove it. Prove that debating doesn't work that way, without "telling me where the supposed truth is to be found".

You give me the points you want to use to support your position and I will consider them.

So the formulation that you're looking for is something like "They put a bunch of people to watch video game violence, and then showed that they had become desensitized."?

Don't tell me I should believe it because somebody else told you that someone who may or may not know what they are talking about wrote it down and published it.
e) Knowledge? Come on, now you really need to get off that high horse of yours.

Neighh!

3. I already said I don't advocate argumentum ad populum; did you even read my fucking post?

Then don't argue ad populum.

[Bridge]

Well, in this case, the information is a scientific study, and even if it's done with dancing monkeys, the burden of proof probably lies on you now. Show me a paper that says that realistic video game violence doesn't desensitize people.

Oh, that point. I refute it with this point. I mean point c). ...on page 2.

Really? Prove it. Prove that debating doesn't work that way, without "telling me where the supposed truth is to be found".

So the formulation that you're looking for is something like "They put a bunch of people to watch video game violence, and then showed that they had become desensitized."?

Neighh!

Then don't argue ad populum.

1. Oh no you don't. You're the one who made an outrageous claim without presenting any proof. You prove it.

2. I meant same point as a)

3. I will. First a topic is decided upon (in this case whether or not videgame violence affects people). After that the person supporting that claim (that's you) needs to present evidence or give a satisfactory explanation on why that claim is worth supporting. This is debating 101 dude; the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. It is not my job to disprove your claim because if it is particularly outlandish (and yours is) then there is no way for me to disprove it. Prime example: "I say God exists and now you disprove my claim." What the hell can I say? Your claim has no grounds in reality and if you tell me it's true just because a book says it is (the Bible) then I lose by default. I can't provide any evidence that God doesn't exist, which is why the burden of proof lies on you. There, and I didn't even need to refer you to a fucking book.

4. It's better than nothing, even though it's bullshit. Show me a study (done under completely unbiased circumstances with a large sample group) that says videogame violence makes you more violent because when exposed to violence x brain cells make your violent psychopath meter go up. That's scientific and realistic. Too bad there is no such study because it's debatable.

6. I'm not. That doesn't mean I have to concede that I am wrong because I am one of the majority.

[Cranky Old Man]

Well, in this case, the information is a scientific study, and even if it's done with dancing monkeys, the burden of proof probably lies on you now. Show me a paper that says that realistic video game violence doesn't desensitize people.

Oh, that point. I refute it with this point. I mean point c). ...on page 2.

Really? Prove it. Prove that debating doesn't work that way, without "telling me where the supposed truth is to be found".

So the formulation that you're looking for is something like "They put a bunch of people to watch video game violence, and then showed that they had become desensitized."?

Neighh!

Then don't argue ad populum.

1. Oh no you don't. You're the one who made an outrageous claim without presenting any proof. You prove it.

I presented the proof, as approved by Science and all of his little minions, but you decided that you somehow weren't going to like it anyway. That's not how it works. If I present proof, then you present at least an equal amount of proof, before you can decide to not like my proof. The burden of proof is on you.

2. I meant same point as a)

Yes, but you never declared what your points was referring to in the first place, and you had five points, while I had four sections.

3. I will. First a topic is decided upon (in this case whether or not videgame violence affects people). After that the person supporting that claim (that's you) needs to present evidence or give a satisfactory explanation on why that claim is worth supporting. This is debating 101 dude; the burden of proof always lies on the person making the claim. It is not my job to disprove your claim because if it is particularly outlandish (and yours is) then there is no way for me to disprove it. Prime example: "I say God exists and now you disprove my claim." What the hell can I say? Your claim has no grounds in reality and if you tell me it's true just because a book says it is (the Bible) then I lose by default. I can't provide any evidence that God doesn't exist, which is why the burden of proof lies on you. There, and I didn't even need to refer you to a fucking book.

Yes, that's a nice theory that you've got there about how debating works, but as I can simply choose to not believe in it, you've proven nothing. You can't prove how debating works, unless you bring in outside sources - sources which you don't accept, and I can choose to not accept just as well.

4. It's better than nothing, even though it's bullshit. Show me a study (done under completely unbiased circumstances with a large sample group) that says videogame violence makes you more violent because when exposed to violence x brain cells make your violent psychopath meter go up. That's scientific and realistic. Too bad there is no such study because it's debatable.

You've never even read the studies I referred to, and you still say that they don't live up to your standards because their circumstances are biased and the control group was too small. You're being completely unreasonable.

6. I'm not. That doesn't mean I have to concede that I am wrong because I am one of the majority.

Actually, I don't think you're one of the overall majority at all.

[Bridge]

I presented the proof, as approved by Science and all of his little minions, but you decided that you somehow weren't going to like it anyway. That's not how it works. If I present proof, then you present at least an equal amount of proof, before you can decide to not like my proof. The burden of proof is on you.

Yes, but you never declared what your points was referring to in the first place, and you had five points, while I had four sections.

Yes, that's a nice theory that you've got there about how debating works, but as I can simply choose to not believe in it, you've proven nothing. You can't prove how debating works, unless you bring in outside sources - sources which you don't accept, and I can choose to not accept just as well.

You've never even read the studies I referred to, and you still say that they don't live up to your standards because their circumstances are biased and the control group was too small. You're being completely unreasonable.

Actually, I don't think you're one of the overall majority at all.

1. The problem is it isn't approved by "Science and his minions". Here's an article that proves it's not unanimous. Is it true? No, it could very well be complete bullshit, but so could your evidence. You wouldn't ever read a book stating general relativity is falsehood because it is now accepted as truth, whereas the nature of singularities and the big bang are still the subject of heavy debate and so not definite.

2. I think it was pretty obvious which point I was referring to, because at that point in time there was only one other point I had written. I wouldn't ever refer to a point that came after without stating which one exactly.

3. It isn't something that can be proven. It's standard practice (there is proof for that) and there's nothing that says it has to work that way. It is the way it is because disproving an unreasonable claim is an uphill battle. You can literally say anything, and I cannot argue with you.

4. Look dude, I really have no interest wasting my life hunting down and reading books just to get an idea for what your position is. It really isn't my problem if you can't provide at least a general summary of your points. Also, now you are being unreasonable because I never accused you of using biased sources at all. That doesn't change the fact that most studies that I've seen are biased with a small sample group (a handful of people that react in a way no sane person would and do something destructive).

5. What then, the minority? Honestly, just reading this thread should tell you that your opinion is not the generally accepted one (which doesn't mean anything in regards to your credibility only that your statement is somewhat mysterious).



I just want to say something outside of this particular discussion. It's not my opinion that videogames can never affect people because that is simply untrue. Humans especially children like to imitate what they see and hear if brings them joy in one way or another. Due to PG-13 action movies and military shooters violence is now seen as "cool". If violence is cool, then you can be cool by being violent, right? While this is completely true it has nothing at all to do with real violence. Going back to a movie like Oldboy however, which is a very violent but tragic and sometimes horrific movie, I can't imagine anybody wanting to emulate it. It's realistic, the violence has real impact and is essential to the story and is portrayed the way it truly is in real life: disturbing.

Does it have anything to do with violence then that children and teenagers are more violent? Partially, but I would lay most of the blame on the stylization (which is not that recent admittedly) of violence by the media. That does not mean it affects your brain in a significant way, so that you want to cause real harm to people. Murder is extremely heavy, even the thought affects people and even sometimes makes them sick. I would say murder is less about the actual violence and more about the emotion behind it. And if you no longer feel anything that could be called emotional when killing people you are officially insane, and I would argue have never been sane.

[Cranky Old Man]

I presented the proof, as approved by Science and all of his little minions, but you decided that you somehow weren't going to like it anyway. That's not how it works. If I present proof, then you present at least an equal amount of proof, before you can decide to not like my proof. The burden of proof is on you.

Yes, but you never declared what your points was referring to in the first place, and you had five points, while I had four sections.

Yes, that's a nice theory that you've got there about how debating works, but as I can simply choose to not believe in it, you've proven nothing. You can't prove how debating works, unless you bring in outside sources - sources which you don't accept, and I can choose to not accept just as well.

You've never even read the studies I referred to, and you still say that they don't live up to your standards because their circumstances are biased and the control group was too small. You're being completely unreasonable.

Actually, I don't think you're one of the overall majority at all.

1. The problem is it isn't approved by "Science and his minions". Here's an article that proves it's not unanimous.

Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl Olson aren't scientific minions. They're student book-writers who interviewed a lot of kids. They noted that kids who play violent video games also get into 23% more fights, but speculated that violent video games were the effect rather than the cause, and that was the extent of their research: Speculation. They openly admit their so called "studies" aren't enough to draw any conclusions. Instead, they fall back on the old "nobody has proven otherwise", which might have been true four years ago when the book was written, but isn't the case anymore.
What you have there is actual sensational bullshit: A pair of gamers who wrote their opinions and did a bunch of interviews to get biased opinions from other gamers to back them up.

Is it true? No, it could very well be complete bullshit, but so could your evidence.

No, because my evidence includes a controlled medical experiment where the desensitation was actually measured.

You wouldn't ever read a book stating general relativity is falsehood because it is now accepted as truth, whereas the nature of singularities and the big bang are still the subject of heavy debate and so not definite.

So what you're saying is that all science is ruled by what is already "accepted as truth"?

2. I think it was pretty obvious which point I was referring to, because at that point in time there was only one other point I had written. I wouldn't ever refer to a point that came after without stating which one exactly.

1. No.
2. No.
3. Really?
4. Obviously things can still get confusing when you don't know which parts the other person is referring to.

3. It isn't something that can be proven. It's standard practice (there is proof for that) and there's nothing that says it has to work that way. It is the way it is because disproving an unreasonable claim is an uphill battle. You can literally say anything, and I cannot argue with you.

"Standard practice" according to you, perhaps, but that still doesn't prove anything. If you say that others subscribe to your idea, then you can't prove that either. Not without outside sources. It's not an uphill battle - it's not even possible. That's why referring to outside sources is necessary.

4. Look dude, I really have no interest wasting my life hunting down and reading books just to get an idea for what your position is. It really isn't my problem if you can't provide at least a general summary of your points.

What the problem is here, is that you don't want to be wrong, and because you don't want to be wrong, you don't want to read anything on the subject that doesn't support your opinion. You "have an interest" in having your opinion, not in knowing the facts. There are superbrief summaries about these studies on Wikipedia.

Also, now you are being unreasonable because I never accused you of using biased sources at all. That doesn't change the fact that most studies that I've seen are biased with a small sample group (a handful of people that react in a way no sane person would and do something destructive).

Okay, but those don't rule out that good studies can be done.

5. What then, the minority? Honestly, just reading this thread should tell you that your opinion is not the generally accepted one

Yes, in this very topic, consisting of gamers, I might be a minority, but in the bigger picture, there's been a whole hysteria going on for decades now. Are you saying that the reasonability of my claim, varies depending on where I make it?

I just want to say something outside of this particular discussion. It's not my opinion that videogames can never affect people because that is simply untrue. Humans especially children like to imitate what they see and hear if brings them joy in one way or another. Due to PG-13 action movies and military shooters violence is now seen as "cool". If violence is cool, then you can be cool by being violent, right? While this is completely true it has nothing at all to do with real violence. Going back to a movie like Oldboy however, which is a very violent but tragic and sometimes horrific movie, I can't imagine anybody wanting to emulate it. It's realistic, the violence has real impact and is essential to the story and is portrayed the way it truly is in real life: disturbing.

Does it have anything to do with violence then that children and teenagers are more violent? Partially, but I would lay most of the blame on the stylization (which is not that recent admittedly) of violence by the media. That does not mean it affects your brain in a significant way, so that you want to cause real harm to people. Murder is extremely heavy, even the thought affects people and even sometimes makes them sick. I would say murder is less about the actual violence and more about the emotion behind it. And if you no longer feel anything that could be called emotional when killing people you are officially insane, and I would argue have never been sane.

Partly players will get desensitized to violence by simply becoming used to it. For example, large pools of blood is seen as normal in a game, because players usually won't reflect on something as frequently occuring as blood, if it's not all over a scene. In the real world, a mere cups worth of blood should be cause for alarm.
...but partly, the portrayal of something will itself develop a player, so if violence is portrayed as anything else than wrong (i.e. normal or right) then that adds another layer to the player conditioning.

[Bridge]

What the problem is here, is that you don't want to be wrong, and because you don't want to be wrong, you don't want to read anything on the subject that doesn't support your opinion. You "have an interest" in having your opinion, not in knowing the facts. There are superbrief summaries about these studies on Wikipedia.

I really have very little interest in keeping this debate up the way it's going. You are taking everything I'm saying completely out of context and placing words relentlessly in my mouth. This is the only point I want to address because anything else will just result in you twisting my posts around. I am very capable though not necessarily willing to be wrong. If the circumstances are fair, defeat can be quite enlightening. I am not so closed-minded that I won't consider differing viewpoints on the matter; I won't however put any credence in them if those viewpoints are supported accordingly with evidence.

So far you have given me none. Yes, you have made references and allusions to so called scientific studies that show without a shadow of a doubt that you are right. Maybe you are, but you explain it to me! I mean really, pointless religious debates I've participated in have been more sporting than this. Don't you tell me to go dig up the information. If the summary is so short, then copy/paste it here. At least pretend like you have something to say on the matter. Otherwise you are, in essence, nothing but a pointer. A null pointer in my opinion.

[Datzy]

Well, since the Cranky Old Man is trying to say that violence and disturbing events in video games desensitize children, let me say something.

I'm 13, I've been playing M- rated games sinceI was ~3, starting with DooM, and most recently getting into Penumbra. I played through Amnesia last year, it was terrifying. But, at the same time -- it was one of the most fun games I have ever played.

Something else I should say; I started playing Amnesia with little-to-no knowledge of the game itself, all I had heard was some of my friends thought it was the scariest game they had ever played. So, when I first played it, I grabbed my headset and got into gear.

Most of the kids at my school like me, most people online like me, I'm quite a sociable person. Not a single game I have played nor a video I have watched has drastically affected my psychologically.

OT: Talk to friends on TS/Ventrilo/Skype when you play the game, it makes it a lot easier. I did that the first time I played Penumbra and it helped me feel like someone was there, so it made it a bit less scary.

[Statyk]

I've played M rated games since Halo 1. I was about 6-7 years old. I have played many other and played Doom 3 when I was about 10-11. (Scared the shit out of me but I loved it). I have played many horror games, war games, and have seen what is called "disturbing images" and I am perfectly normal. (in a human-behavior sense =P) I have never thought of shooting up places, I have never thought of stealing a car or becoming violent and saying "Well, I was playing this game and wanted to try it in real life."

No. It is the classic battle of Nature vs Nurture.

Violence is brought about by a mix of this. Nature because people may be born with an aggresive personality or an illness, such as psychotic behavior. Nurture comes in most IMO because many of the violent, uncaring kids are brought up in this pattern of uncaring and unfit parents. My parents have never went against my goals. They know I am an artistic guy and wanted to get into the game design business since I first played Super Mario 64. I am so calm and relaxed 99% of the time, that when a friend of mine sees me mad at someone, they ALWAYS say, "I had no idea you could get mad at a person. I don't see you as a violent person." Why? BECAUSE I'M NOT. I don't run around with a gun, trying to hijack cars.

Games do not bring about bad behavior. Parenting, or lack there of, does and I'm getting sick of those parents quickly pointing the gun at anything else they can before pointing it at themselves.

Hope this helps. =]