Absolute Wuss

[Cranky Old Man]

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.

In other words, you're too lazy to look something like Video Game Violence up on Wikipedia.
In case you don't know this: You can't prove anything (at least worth while) if you don't refer to outside sources, and if you refer to outside sources, verification is expected anyway, to prevent you from just inventing studies. If you argue on the internet, you won't get anywhere unless you are willing to actually consult other pages.

[Cranky Old Man]

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. =]

Unfortunately, the "I've never noticed any I'll effects." argument, doesn't go that far when the point is that players won't notice any ill effects. Statistically, influecing people through commercials is supposed to be very profitable, but I bet you've "never experienced any ill effects" from that either. Adults are "fair game", because they're expected to have developed enough critical thinking to resist media conditioning, but it's very hard to predict how kids will integrate violence into the early stages of development. Violent games are teaching kids how to kill people. That's the equivalent of shipping the kid off to a training camp for child soldiers.

[Prelauncher]

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. =]

Unfortunately, the "I've never noticed any I'll effects." argument, doesn't go that far when the point is that players won't notice any ill effects. Statistically, influecing people through commercials is supposed to be very profitable, but I bet you've "never experienced any ill effects" from that either. Adults are "fair game", because they're expected to have developed enough critical thinking to resist media conditioning, but it's very hard to predict how kids will integrate violence into the early stages of development. Violent games are teaching kids how to kill people. That's the equivalent of shipping the kid off to a training camp for child soldiers.

I do not agree with violent games teaching kids how to kill people, the act of killing in a game is not realistic in the slightest. You never see the whole picture, you never see the soldiers return home, most of them with psychological problems as a result of the war.
Yes, violence in games has a negative effect on children, violence is never good for anybody. But games are not kids toys anymore, they are made for people in all ages. When Activision market Call of Duty they don't go "Hey parents, your kids are gonna love this." or when a new Dead Space is released "Your five year old daughter will love you for this." The developers did not make those games for kids and therefore you cannot blame them for the kids who are exposed. The parents are to be held responsible for their kids, because in the end its the parents fault, it is their duty to know what their kids are doing. A child is not ready to make the decision what is good for them and what is bad, that decision is to be made by their parents.

[Cranky Old Man]

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. =]

Unfortunately, the "I've never noticed any I'll effects." argument, doesn't go that far when the point is that players won't notice any ill effects. Statistically, influecing people through commercials is supposed to be very profitable, but I bet you've "never experienced any ill effects" from that either. Adults are "fair game", because they're expected to have developed enough critical thinking to resist media conditioning, but it's very hard to predict how kids will integrate violence into the early stages of development. Violent games are teaching kids how to kill people. That's the equivalent of shipping the kid off to a training camp for child soldiers.

I do not agree with violent games teaching kids how to kill people, the act of killing in a game is not realistic in the slightest. You never see the whole picture, you never see the soldiers return home, most of them with psychological problems as a result of the war.
Yes, violence in games has a negative effect on children, violence is never good for anybody. But games are not kids toys anymore, they are made for people in all ages. When Activision market Call of Duty they don't go "Hey parents, your kids are gonna love this." or when a new Dead Space is released "Your five year old daughter will love you for this." The developers did not make those games for kids and therefore you cannot blame them for the kids who are exposed. The parents are to be held responsible for their kids, because in the end its the parents fault, it is their duty to know what their kids are doing. A child is not ready to make the decision what is good for them and what is bad, that decision is to be made by their parents.

I completely agree. I'm absolutely against censorship for adults. I'm just questioning if parents who allows their kids to play these games, are suitable.

[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.

In other words, you're too lazy to look something like Video Game Violence up on Wikipedia.
In case you don't know this: You can't prove anything (at least worth while) if you don't refer to outside sources, and if you refer to outside sources, verification is expected anyway, to prevent you from just inventing studies. If you argue on the internet, you won't get anywhere unless you are willing to actually consult other pages.

It's not my problem if you don't want to put in the effort. Don't you think I've already read up on the issue? I have, and I decided it has no grounds in reality. Your job as a debater is to convince me otherwise and so far you are failing miserably (if not trying can be considered failing). What the fuck is the point of debating if one of the parties is just going to suggest reading material for the other party?

[Cranky Old Man]

It's not my problem if you don't want to put in the effort. Don't you think I've already read up on the issue? I have, and I decided it has no grounds in reality. Your job as a debater is to convince me otherwise and so far you are failing miserably (if not trying can be considered failing). What the fuck is the point of debating if one of the parties is just going to suggest reading material for the other party?

Didn't I already tell you that this topic isn't open to debate? You can't debate these issues, because they're simply a matter of whether there is enough studies to support either side. No amount of rhetorics will have any influence on science. If you've read up on my proof, and I've read up on yours, then that's it. That's how far as you can get.

[Cranky Old Man]

So, I did a bit of research on this and discovered that out of the fifty sites (Supporting video games influenced children) I looked through, over thirty of them were religious. Five didn't use any evidence, and thirty eight were sites that also had articles/essays/studies such as: Minecraft encourages drug use, 2012 predictions etc. I also came across a BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4594376.stm
Now, one of the quotes in this article caught my attention "The truth is there are many factors that can lead to violence, such as being withdrawn and isolated, so it is hard to say it is because of one thing"
This was from Professor David Buckingham.
Now, note that "The truth is there are many factors that can lead to violence." Now, tell me, what is commonly associated with Video games and addiction to them? Withdrawn, Isolation, Lack of social activity etc..
Which are factors that lead to violence. So, isn't it possible that graphic violence isn't actually what affects us? But, the isolation it creates? This is the obvious conclusion, as it isn't just children being affected by long periods of playing violent games but adults too - the media have focused on children because of the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" attitude some people have. The fact is, if what is said about video games is true, then so would television/cartoon etc violence.
But we will all argue against television affecting us, so why would we argue that video games do?

They've proven that people will get desensitized to violence by measuring biological responses. That's an addditional factor all of its own. Visual experiences affects our emotional development.

[Bridge]

It's not my problem if you don't want to put in the effort. Don't you think I've already read up on the issue? I have, and I decided it has no grounds in reality. Your job as a debater is to convince me otherwise and so far you are failing miserably (if not trying can be considered failing). What the fuck is the point of debating if one of the parties is just going to suggest reading material for the other party?

Didn't I already tell you that this topic isn't open to debate? You can't debate these issues, because they're simply a matter of whether there is enough studies to support either side. No amount of rhetorics will have any influence on science. If you've read up on my proof, and I've read up on yours, then that's it. That's how far as you can get.

Notwithstanding all that it is still unsatisfying. The subject of whether God exists is also non-debatable and yet people are perfectly capable of having civil and fair debates about the issue. There are however people that do nothing but quote the Bible as proof or worse, say "I'm right because the Bible says it's so" which really is what you are doing.

[Cranky Old Man]

It's not my problem if you don't want to put in the effort. Don't you think I've already read up on the issue? I have, and I decided it has no grounds in reality. Your job as a debater is to convince me otherwise and so far you are failing miserably (if not trying can be considered failing). What the fuck is the point of debating if one of the parties is just going to suggest reading material for the other party?

Didn't I already tell you that this topic isn't open to debate? You can't debate these issues, because they're simply a matter of whether there is enough studies to support either side. No amount of rhetorics will have any influence on science. If you've read up on my proof, and I've read up on yours, then that's it. That's how far as you can get.

Notwithstanding all that it is still unsatisfying. The subject of whether God exists is also non-debatable and yet people are perfectly capable of having civil and fair debates about the issue.

Yeah, and those people are getting nowhere. I'm not that stubborn.

There are however people that do nothing but quote the Bible as proof or worse, say "I'm right because the Bible says it's so" which really is what you are doing.

No, I'm right because reality says it's so. ...unless scientists are blatantly lying, which I have every reason to trust that they're not.

[Cranky Old Man]

Like seeing your posts that refuse to accept logic and reason from Bridge make me sad.

Well, the answer is simple: You're both nuts.