Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 9th Mar 2013 15:42 UTC
Games "For nearly thirty years we've been having this discussion, asking the question: do violent movies, music or video games make people violent? Well according to Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, yes. Based on the results of their research they concluded in 2001 that video games and violent media can make people aggressive and violent. Based upon their data and their conclusions, however, it's safe to say that photos of snakes, crispy bacon, or a particularly rigorous game of chess can also make people aggressive and violent." And politicians?
Order by: Score:
Politicians are people, too ;p
by zima on Sat 9th Mar 2013 17:11 UTC
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

Overall, it can be said more broadly: primarily other people make people violent. I'm a bit afraid of the possible conclusion of that observation, so I won't go there... ;)

PS. Games + snakes = I only hope they won't ban PyGame.

Edited 2013-03-09 17:12 UTC

Reply Score: 10

People take this stuff too lightly
by WorknMan on Sat 9th Mar 2013 17:47 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

I think a lot of people are under the impression that, "Well, I play a lot of violent video games and I'm not out shooting people, so they must be completely harmless, right?" IMO, that is a much too simplistic point of view. I'm not sure how people think they can play these kinds of games for hours on end where you're shooting up and/or murdering other players/computer opponents, and it not have SOME sort of effect on you, even if those effects are too subtle to notice.

Now, please don't misunderstand me... I am NOT suggesting we ban these, anymore than I think we should be banning junk food. I'm just of the opinion that EVERYTHING that goes into your mind has an effect on you, just like food; there's not too many things you can eat or drink that are completely neutral. And I'd personally steer clear of these games until we have a better understanding of what those effects are. And yes, I feel the same way about violent movies/music. Sure, I might go see a violent action flick from time to time, but I treat those just like I would donuts... junk food for the mind, to be consumed in moderation. I have found, however, that the less I consume of this entertainment, it gets just a little more disturbing every time I see it, and I don't enjoy it as much.

Reply Score: 6

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's however not the reason for violence. Like some gun proponents claim. There are a lot of things that make people violent, one of which is religious views.

Reply Score: 3

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Yes they will (get hurt). They'll get stabbed with kitchen knives, hit in the eyes with forks, get thrown with stones etc.
I'd like to see you ban-happy fellows banning sticks & stones. Even the EU is not that ridiculous (yet).

Edited 2013-03-09 19:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

Yes they will (get hurt). They'll get stabbed with kitchen knives, hit in the eyes with forks, get thrown with stones etc.
I'd like to see you ban-happy fellows banning sticks & stones. Even the EU is not that ridiculous (yet).

Still if you disallow carrying guns in public, you are removing a significant cause of murders, right?

It's like banning smoking in public places like restaurants. sure it oppresses freedom but realistically solves a problem, correct?

Sometimes you have to put aside your morals, ideals and principles in order to create a safer environment.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice freedom and rights for the safety of the whole. it's called responsibility. It comes with living in a technically and culturally advanced country.
This isn't the middle ages anymore.

Reply Score: 1

snorkel2 Member since:
2007-03-06

"Still if you disallow carrying guns in public, you are removing a significant cause of murders, right?"

That is incorrect, in states that allow concealed carry there have been no increase in murders and no big shoot outs etc. If someone is going to kill they will do it regardless of whether or not they have a gun, a gun is just another tool. it can be a effective tool, but just a tool. If someone is going to go through all the trouble to get a concealed carry permit it's highly unlikely they are going to go shoot some place up, not the guy who steals a gun from a store etc and has no regard for the law just might.

The bottom line is bad people murder and we need to figure out what is making people bad, not just simply ban the tool. Take away guns and they will start killing with bombs, knives, machetes, ice picks you name it.

Reply Score: 1

ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

If someone is going to kill they will do it regardless of whether or not they have a gun, a gun is just another tool.


So are nuclear warheads, I don't see why I can't have one.

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

in states that allow concealed carry there have been no increase in murders and no big shoot outs etc.

That's not setting the benchmark very high, considering the US has among the worst rates in developed world.

Reply Score: 2

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19

Yes they will (get hurt). They'll get stabbed with kitchen knives, hit in the eyes with forks, get thrown with stones etc.


They will get hurt, yes.

But they will also be [i]much less likely to get killed.

On the same day as the Newtown school shootings in America, a mentally-unbalanced man entered an elementary school in Chengping, China and tried to kill the students. He wounded 22 children and 1 adult.

Wounded, not killed. That's because all the man had was a knife -- private ownership of firearms is illegal in China. The casualties got taken to the hospital, and they lived to tell the tale.

Incidentally, the security guards who tackled the man did not have guns. The police in China also normally go on patrol without guns. (They do have guns at the station house, if they need them.)

Japanese police do carry guns -- but they are restricted from using them in most situations. They are actually instructed to let a fleeing suspect go free, rather than shoot him. The gun is there solely for purposes of defense -- and that means that you shouldn't shoot the criminal when he isn't threatening anyone. The criminals know this, and so they're more willing to go around without guns. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood that they'll kill someone.

When you get rid of guns, you decrease the overall violence level of society. This is a Good Thing.

Reply Score: 3

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

It is also much more difficult to kill with a knife than with a machine gun, and much easier to escape. Especially since very little people have training in knife throwing, compared to gun shooting.

Reply Score: 2

snorkel2 Member since:
2007-03-06

It is also much more difficult to kill with a knife than with a machine gun, and much easier to escape. Especially since very little people have training in knife throwing, compared to gun shooting.


You realize machine guns have been out right banned since the 1930s? Very very few civilians have machine guns, however the ATF lost one in Milwaukee this past summer along with all the merchandise in their fake store front....

There are so many murders with kitchen knives it's not even funny, it's just easier to kill with guns at a distance, in a closed room with a large knife it would not be difficult and it happens quite a bit in China.

A few years ago this huge guy was trying to beat the crap out of a much smaller guy in a bar, he through the smaller guy on the bar and the smaller guy grabbed a steak knife that was on the bar and stabbed the big guy in the neck, he bled out in a matter of minutes.

So bullshit on the knife argument....

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There's a difference though. Firearms where specifically designed to kill while kitchen knives & forks where designed for something else entirely and just happen to also be able to kill.
There's a difference in intent.

Reply Score: 3

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

from a practical view, no. ban civilians from carrying weapons and no one gets hurt.

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month. Ban "civilians" from carrying guns and guess what happens? The criminals still get them. Then said "civilians" no longer have a way to defend themselves. Those who will use weapons to harm others don't give a damn about your regulations or bans. Perhaps the lives of criminals are worth more to you than the lives of the rest of us, but you can forgive me if I don't take that view myself as my life is just a little important to me. When we add zealous law enforcement into the mix, it gets even more complicated especially when the government behind them moves to control our lives more and more by the day. This has already happened several times within the last century. Do you people never learn from history?

Reply Score: 2

Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

Interestingly enough, Australian Institute of Criminology data shows a decline in firearm related homicides since gun control laws were introduced. What it also shows is that prior to gun control laws, homicide in general was already on a decline, and that decline was completely unaltered by the availability of firearms. Firearm related homicide as a percentage of all homicide sharply fell, but homicide was largely unchanged. It's basically mathematical proof that people who want to kill eachother will do it however they can. A gun may be a weapon of opportunity, just as a kitchen knife, a pillow, or your own bare hands can be.

Interstingly, the data stretches to 1990, before violence in video games was a real issue. Before the graphics were really capable of properly depicting violence. Violent games are all the more common, today, and more violent. Clearly, an increase in the social penetration of violent games, and an increase in the violence of these games doesn't even register in the homicide statistics.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Edited 2013-03-09 23:03 UTC

Reply Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

But then how about gun related deaths?
Homicides are one thing, but US has the highest statistics when it comes to accidental gun deaths and injuries.

Reply Score: 3

tanzam75 Member since:
2011-05-19


That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month. Ban "civilians" from carrying guns and guess what happens? The criminals still get them.


Fewer criminals will have guns. And that is a good thing -- even if the occasional ultra-violent criminal gets an illegal gun anyway.

It's simple game theory. The criminals arm themselves to the extent that they feel they need to, in order to be successful in their lives of crime. If everyone else has guns, they're unlikely to buy an illegal rocket launcher on the world arms market, because that would be overkill. Similarly, if everyone else has knives, they're unlikely to buy an illegal gun, because that would be overkill.

We see this in lots of places. In England, for example, the police normally go around unarmed -- and resist calls for them to routinely carry guns. They argue that if they carried guns, then so would the criminals. And so they've gained no relative advantage over the criminals -- except that they've just managed to raise the overall violence level in society. In so doing, they make it more likely that they themselves will get shot in the line of duty.

Now, do the police in England get shot and killed from time to time, because they are unarmed? Yes. But much less often. When you bring down the overall level of gun ownership, you also bring down the overall violence level of society.

Edited 2013-03-10 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month. Ban "civilians" from carrying guns and guess what happens? The criminals still get them.


I've seen some debates concerning the gun-laws in US. Based on that knowledge it seems that there are as less restrictions on purchasing guns than a pack of cigarettes.
And then, when you don't track properly weapons... How will police know that you are allowed to carry one?
And then... How many times do we get news that a legally purchased gun was used to kill innocent children vs a gun was used to kill intruders.
And then there's tragic case of Treyvon.

You know what seems stupid? Steven Seagal training a bunch of wannabe's to defend schools.

This has already happened several times within the last century. Do you people never learn from history?

Yes we do. We also learn from recent history. For example in Chechnya, while the local militia outnumbered the Russian forces the militia were no match for the special forces. Try playing paintball or softball with marines... You will be torn to pieces.
Also, civilian grade weapons are a joke. They are useful to kill your neighbour, not a soldier. And that is how they are mostly used...

Reply Score: 1

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Also, civilian grade weapons are a joke. They are useful to kill your neighbour, not a soldier.


To quote yourself on that:
That has to be the most idiotic thing I've heard this month.


A bullet through your head shot from a semi-automatic AR-15 will kill you all the same as a bullet through your head shot from a military-grade M-16 assault rifle.

This kind of nonsense makes any of your reasonable arguments also subject to heavy suspicion.

Edited 2013-03-10 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

A bullet through your head shot from a semi-automatic AR-15 will kill you all the same as a bullet through your head shot from a military-grade M-16 assault rifle.


Yep... A head shot. Do you even know how hard is that to do? You're not a freaking sniper.
A shot from a military grade weapon is deigned to take down a person with one shot(not necessarily to the head) at a long range. Civilian grade weapons don't work like that.

PS: Would you mind quoting me and not putting words into my mouth.

Reply Score: 2

manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

You have not seen guns outside of Call of Duty or Counter-Strike, have you?

A flesh wound from a "military grade" weapon is, of course, a magnitude worse than from a "civilian grade" weapon if you are to be believed.

If not for the fact that the only difference between them is likely the trigger mechanism preventing full-auto fire on civilian versions (if talking about rifles; handguns don't even have that). The cartridge, barrel, everything that matters is the same!
But, of course, it's declared "military grade" and therefore automagically more deadly than its pussy "civilian grade" counterparts.

Funny how, when we talk about "military grade" computing, for example, we do not make that kind of flat-out distinction but discuss the actual differences between mil/civ versions of gadgets.

PS. I was not putting words in your mouth. I was responding to a quote from you with another quote from you. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Do you people never learn from history?


I dunno, many countries with stricter gun laws than the U.S have a lower rate of violent crime.
Who's the ones not learning from history?

Reply Score: 2

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

ban civilians from carrying weapons and no one gets hurt.


You don't read British newspapers, do you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290658/The-battered-face-1...

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yep. That is as opposed to this:
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/78457/Oak_Park_driveby_shoo...

A boy beaten up and lived, a man shot and died. Guns make it all better, the man did not suffer... Amirite?

Reply Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

It is the dailymail FFS.

Reply Score: 4

terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

Denieing the opportunity to deal with physical weapons and violent feelings (sometimes they are a necessity to survive but mostly it's undesired in social environments), isn't practical either and just an easy hack.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/weird-science-ponders-the-se...

The article talks about how we are inclined to abuse our advantage over another, be it a sharp mind or a knife. I think that's rather the point that needs to be addressed, rather than taking away one tool.

Reply Score: 1

Vinegar Joe Member since:
2006-08-16

There are a lot of things that make people violent, one of which is religious views.

From what religion would those views be?

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

From what religion would those views be?

How about, all of them? Read any religious scripture, and I mean really read it. Don't be satisfied with the interpretation of your denomination or sect. Read the books and you will not have to ask that question again. The Bible, Koran, and every other religious text is full to the brim with violence against those who do not follow the faith of that scripture. Murder, rape, slavery, castration. You name it, it's there. I could list a lot of quotes from multiple texts, but I think that's going outside the scope of this argument and, if you read the scripture itself, will be unnecessary. If you read those texts and still cannot spot the violence, you are deliberately ignorant and no amount of explanation will help anyway.

Reply Score: 4

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I agree.

But saying all of them is a bit strong, there are always exceptions to the rule, Buddhism is the one in this case. The people fighting for a free Tibet rather burn themselves alive then use violence.

I guess Buddhism is the the copyleft license. ;-)

You can make it more general, it's believes. Believes is the biggest violence generator of them all.

Even killing gay people because they are gay. Which can be culture reasons, not just religious.

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Free Tibet? Only if it's not ruled by the "order of Llamas". The people fighting for free Tibet are fighting for re-establishing the theocracy that subjugate the ordinary people. Just because you're against Chinese presence, you should not be for the tyranny of the Llama.(See Iran as a good example)

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

OK, maybe I should have phrased that differently. I did not comment on their intentions I only mentioned their believes of non-violence.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

But saying all of them is a bit strong, there are always exceptions to the rule, Buddhism is the one in this case. The people fighting for a free Tibet rather burn themselves alive then use violence.


Technically, Buddhism is not a religion ;)

Reply Score: 2

Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

The three Abrahamic religions have been a cancer on our civilization for centuries. Actually read your Bible, take it off the coffee table.

Outside the scope of discussing the violence in it (unless of course you're talking about adult men of a working age who're of the same faith as eachother, no violence there, only love, but not too much love, because that's bad! Stone those guys!), engage in a little comparative reading. Compare it to our knowledge of Mesopotamian religious texts. A lot of the Old Testament is pretty much taken straight from there. Then there's all the Celtic and Roman beliefs that worked their way in. There's barely an original thought in the Christian Bible.

Reply Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Christianity has always been about converting the most people to their religion. The more text and customs they incorporate the better the chance they will attract more people.

Here is an example: Christmas three

Reply Score: 2

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Christmas in general, and at which time of the year it takes place (while the exact date is not given in the myth of birth from New Testament, we can be certain it was during warmer half of the year - only then herds & shepherds were out like that)

Reply Score: 2

snorkel2 Member since:
2007-03-06

Just about any of them Christianity included.
Crusades, Jihads whatever it's all the same violence in the name of God...

Reply Score: 1

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I think a lot of people are under the impression that, "Well, I play a lot of violent video games and I'm not out shooting people, so they must be completely harmless, right?" IMO, that is a much too simplistic point of view. I'm not sure how people think they can play these kinds of games for hours on end where you're shooting up and/or murdering other players/computer opponents, and it not have SOME sort of effect on you, even if those effects are too subtle to notice.

Now, please don't misunderstand me... I am NOT suggesting we ban these, anymore than I think we should be banning junk food. I'm just of the opinion that EVERYTHING that goes into your mind has an effect on you, just like food; there's not too many things you can eat or drink that are completely neutral. And I'd personally steer clear of these games until we have a better understanding of what those effects are. And yes, I feel the same way about violent movies/music. Sure, I might go see a violent action flick from time to time, but I treat those just like I would donuts... junk food for the mind, to be consumed in moderation. I have found, however, that the less I consume of this entertainment, it gets just a little more disturbing every time I see it, and I don't enjoy it as much.

So thinking about violence makes you violent? Then why do sports make you violent? Do you think Dexter will create a generation of serial killers? Why do violent crimes happen less when people have been consuming more violent tv/games/books/sports/music these last hundred years.

IMHO violent people will be violent. They just use inspiration from sources they like(games/books/lyrics/movies)

Reply Score: 4

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So thinking about violence makes you violent?


Can you read through my post again and point out exactly where I said that? Why does being violent have to be the ONLY negative side-effect of violent entertainment?

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I think a lot of people are under the impression that, "Well, I play a lot of violent video games and I'm not out shooting people, so they must be completely harmless, right?" IMO, that is a much too simplistic point of view. I'm not sure how people think they can play these kinds of games for hours on end where you're shooting up and/or murdering other players/computer opponents, and it not have SOME sort of effect on you, even if those effects are too subtle to notice.


Everything we do, see or hear in our lives does have an effect on us, but you're assuming that consuming violent games has a negative effect on us. The thing is, people react to things differently: some people get aggressive when playing violent games, some people actually relax and get less aggressive, and then there are the unstable ones that may act in one or another completely random way.

On a similar note, you're assuming that seeing violence desensitivizes you and makes you not care about other people getting hurt, but that's again a terribly one-sided assumption. I, for example, understand violence and its effects BETTER the more I see it -- not the opposite -- and am even less likely to commit some violent act.

As for the school-shootings and similar situations where the person committing the act was a gamer? Well, you may not have noticed that in almost all of the cases it was a person who was mentally ill, but wasn't receiving (enough) treatment. The thing about unstable, mentally ill people is that the trigger that makes them go over the board could literally be anything, it just has to happen at an opportune time. The way to fix that would be treating the people, not blaming everything that happens to act as the trigger.

Reply Score: 3

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Everything we do, see or hear in our lives does have an effect on us, but you're assuming that consuming violent games has a negative effect on us. The thing is, people react to things differently: some people get aggressive when playing violent games, some people actually relax and get less aggressive, and then there are the unstable ones that may act in one or another completely random way.

On a similar note, you're assuming that seeing violence desensitivizes you and makes you not care about other people getting hurt


I think you assume too much about what I assume ;) I do agree with your first sentence though... everything we do, see, or hear has an effect on us. And I think we can conclude that those effects are either positive or negative. I will readily admit that I do not understand all of the ramifications involved; I'm just not sure what sort of positive effect can come out of engaging in hours of simulated murder. Again, I think it's rather naive for people to believe that, because we don't all turn into violent mass murderers as a result of playing these games, then the effects of playing them must obviously be positive.

If I haven't made my point abundantly clear yet, I am not making ANY sort of claim about what SPECIFIC effects these games have on people, only that the total overall effect is either positive or negative. And if it isn't positive, people need to understand that it is hurting them in SOME way. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to avoid them altogether; just treat them like eating a doughnut - something to be enjoyed in moderation, but realizing that overall, it's bad for us.

Edited 2013-03-10 22:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

On a similar note, you're assuming that seeing violence desensitivizes you


Well, of course it does but that is balanced by the fact that few people do nothing else but watch ultra-violence all day.

Does violent games make you violent? Under the right circumstance, sure, but no one lives under those conditions and they could very rarely exist outside a controlled experiment.

This is of course not limited to games and movies. Keep someone isolated and feed them nothing but gruesome and desensitizing literature for years on end and you'll have the same result, especially if you start at an early age.

Reply Score: 2

franzrogar Member since:
2012-05-17

I'm sorry, I'm still laughting with yout post title:

"People take this stuff too lightly"

Well, OF COURSE we do. Why? Because this stuff is just the BIGGEST FOOLISHNESS on the human history.

Must I remember you that it was "normal" to sell your childs, abandon them to their luck, starve to death and having to kill for eat, etc. a century back? (I know that also happens nowadays)

If you say "seeing/reading" (movies, books) or "interacting" (games) just make them violent, oh, wait, actually DOING WORST THINGS would have made the humanity not humans but MONSTERS.

Seriously, you should LIVE more and LET LIVE the others. Stop being ignorants.

Should I remember you that who wanted to rip Snow White's heart out of her chest was HER MOTHER?

Edited 2013-03-10 11:47 UTC

Reply Score: 1

banatibor Member since:
2012-07-02

Frustration makes you aggressive not aggressive and violent games. A couple years ago I was a "gamer" I played about 10 hour in a day, but I never was aggressive with others. Instead, after a couple of hour successful shooting I felt myself calm and relaxed.
Struggling with a game makes you tense and the lack of success makes you aggressive. Of course there is people who takes games too seriously but I am sure that they have other more serious problems than game generated aggression.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sat 9th Mar 2013 18:21 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

I think violent games can trigger people that already have a (perhaps deep) embedded urge or like for violence. It may be why they started playing those games in the first place.

Killing people with airplanes is what I like doing, but I'm not very fond of heights and I would NEVER take off in a fighter jet even when a real pilot is flying it.

So I'm sure there are far many more people playing "violent" games that will develop no bad mental effects than people who do.

BTW this game got a lot of protest for being too violent in the 80's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYhPplBTdZ0

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Sun 10th Mar 2013 07:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Commando Libya FTW!!
Man, that was one sick puppy of a game not to mention how horribly awful the gameplay was ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 10th Mar 2013 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I always had the impression there was more talk about the game than people actually playing it, let alone enjoying it.

Apparently what people object to were the "guts" spilling out of someone's body when you shoot him (to me it more seemed they melted away) and the "bonus" screen where you had to execute a number of prisoners I guess.

It's easy to make a big list of games, even from that era, where much more horrible things happened. Like eating pills (drugs!) that enable you to eat ghosts. YUK!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Sun 10th Mar 2013 08:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I always had the impression there was more talk about the game than people actually playing it, let alone enjoying it.


Yes. The game was hard to get your hands on and even if you could get hold of it it sucked, big time, so I don't think anyone actually enjoyed it.

I seem to recall that the major complains about it (at least in Sweden) was about the execution of the prisoners and the beheadings.

Flash remake: http://www.kyynel.biz/commando/

Edited 2013-03-10 08:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

The execution and beheading were senseless violence, but isn't all violence in video games senseless? You are under no obligation to play them and most people that do play them do so because they find it entertaining.

In Green Beret you go rescue some POWs armed with only a knife(!?), but you can pick up a flamethrower and burn people. Not very pleasant either.

In Ultima V you could kill children! And in Elite you got give up your trading life and become a pirate!!! In Pirates! you already were one!

But today games look more realistic so I can imagine people enjoying killing people in a realistic way is a bit more "hummm..." than when other people were 16 colored sprites.

Still I think most people can see the difference between a video game and real life. People who can't will find other triggers to do evil deeds.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Mon 11th Mar 2013 03:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, in honest there's a rather big difference between
killing someone in a fight and cold-blooded executions.

Not that it makes the outrage over one rather obscure and crap c64 game any less stupid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Mon 11th Mar 2013 05:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, there is a difference between killing in a fight and execution... and playing a computer game.

It's all bits 'n' pixels really and I think (hope, suspect) most people see the difference between a game and reality.

But I do worry about things looking too realistic. I have no problem gunning down 16 color sprites that move on a 320x200 screen, but I find it creepy when kids enjoy killing people in a computer game in a realistic way.

Compare it to Tom & Jerry violence, where the most terrible things happen, and to horror movies. My 9 year old loves Tom & Jerry, but he wouldn't be able to sleep for weeks if I showed him a horror movie.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Sun 10th Mar 2013 17:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Killing people with airplanes is what I like doing, but I'm not very fond of heights and I would NEVER take off in a fighter jet even when a real pilot is flying it.
[...]
BTW this game got a lot of protest for being too violent in the 80's:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYhPplBTdZ0

After the "killing people with airplanes" I thought you would link to River Raid ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Raid#German_controversy


But why wouldn't you take off in a fighter jet? (with real pilot flying it) It must be awesome...

BTW that, there's Les Chevaliers du Ciel (aka Sky Fighters) film - has a much more spectacular cinematography than, say, Top Gun (in Top Gun the camera was mostly on the ground/hills; in Les Chevaliers it's typically on the airplanes), more actual flying, and (to quote Quentin Tarantino http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111218/quotes & http://entertainment.time.com/2011/05/16/top-10-reasons-top-gun-is-... ) it is NOT "a man's struggle with his own homosexuality" ;p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdrZJw7gRJc

Edited 2013-03-10 17:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

River Raid is a great game! But I'm more in to flight simulators. A few days ago I played F15 Strike Eagle 2 and Gunship 2000 on my Amiga 1200.

Apart from the flying and fighting/blowing up stuff I'm a nerdy geek so I enjoy all the instruments and HUD information and making choices based on fuel, weapons, enemies, etc... It's a real time puzzle with multiple good and bad solutions.

F-19 Stealth Fighter was an amazing game on the Commodore 64.

I'm not very fond of heights. I'm brave enough to get on a roller coaster, but I always regret doing this. Now I imagine taking a ride on an F16 (D model obviously) equals a roller coaster * 100.

The YouTube link has some very nice music and seems like a Mirage commercial.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Both video excerpts and the music in that YT link are from the Les Chevaliers du Ciel film - I really recommend it if you're even a bit into aviation one way or the other (again, the cinematography is stunning - they even relaxed some proximity rules; and had only one chance to film the scenes over Paris, during an annual parade).
Yes, the whole film can be also seen as a Mirage promo, I guess. ;)

I remember playing often some flight simulator on my C=64, ~two decades ago ...and yeah, IIRC the most common reason of my demise was a lack of fuel ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Mon 11th Mar 2013 05:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It seems the movie is in French, so my only hope is to get it with English subtitles.

Movies that feature fighter planes often lack a certain level of realism. This is even more true when MiGs are involved, although I understand it's not easy to borrow some MiGs to feature in a movie where they get shot down.

But if you are able to recognize some fighter types it becomes distracting in an annoying way if they freak out about some MiGs while they are US planes with a Soviet logo painted on.

Reply Score: 2

What?
by hussam on Sat 9th Mar 2013 18:30 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

what? violent games make you violent? I should PK you for saying that!

Reply Score: 2

The obligatory bread comment
by zzarko on Sat 9th Mar 2013 21:36 UTC
zzarko
Member since:
2011-01-09

The Dangers of Bread

A recent Cincinnati Enquirer headline read, "Smell of baked bread may be health hazard." The article went on to describe the dangers of the smell of baking bread. The main danger, apparently, is that the organic components of this aroma may break down ozone (I'm not making this stuff up). Well, I've done a little research, and what I've discovered should make anyone think twice....

1: More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread eaters.

2: Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.

3: In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever and influenza ravaged whole nations.

4: More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.

5: Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!

6: Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low occurrence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease and osteoporosis.

7: Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after only two days.

8: Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter and even cold cuts.

9: Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person. (Addendum to original findings - this fact accounts for Madison Avenue's glorification of the "Dough Boy," thus predisposing young people to a life of bread consumption! Not to mention the glorification of bread earting by some fundamentalist religious sects!)

10: Newborn babies can choke on bread.

11: Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.

12: Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

Reply Score: 10

Violence x socialization
by acobar on Sat 9th Mar 2013 21:44 UTC
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Disclaimer, I am by no means an expert on human behavior or character development. Below are just opinions of someone that saw many kids grow up (mines too).

I see one big, huge, problem with the electronic games of today, and it is not directly involved with the fact that the most famous of them are violent. When I was a kid we were exposed to violence too, even though it did not have the level of details we get today, and most of heroes of my time displayed or used violence to "resolve" "conflicts".

What I see as a big problem is that kids that are left alone with games have their exposure to a very important aspect of education kind of "softened", they don't have to negotiate with others to have the rewards associated to "playing" and, perhaps, have their awareness and identification with another being impaired. Also, the biggest benefit of the exposure to others ideas, to see misconceptions/gaps on our beliefs/knowledge, what allow us to improve ourselves, may also be diminished. They may develop a personality where they just don't fell compassionated by problems of others and may not be prepared to concede, shall the moment arrive, to have only part of their wishes filled at that time or on future, or just can't think out of their shell, not matter what. Under pressure they probably have a higher chance to act awkwardly.

Perhaps, there is a similar pattern on a very homogeneous society whose members display no empathy to someone dissimilar to them.

Anyway, the problem is very alike the one about guns. Most of people will not have problems with them but, to a fraction, it may just unlock the daemon they have inside. And we are 7 billion (and growing), and we are combining both. That are three of the reasons we are inside the big mess we have now.

Last, lets remember that our world never was the paradise we like to think. On all periods of our history there were, slavery, wars, slaughter and savagery. What is unbelievable is that we are still barbarians despite all the knowledge we gathered from roughly 500 years to now.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Sun 10th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I think the problem with the whole violent game debate is they treat it in the same way that some people argue all drugs are equally bad.


Violent games can desensitise some kids to violence. That doesn't automatically make them violent. It just means if they were already violent, they might become more violent as they're less sensitised to it. But then a lack of disciplining said child can also make them more violent and more violence will in turn desensitise them to violence.

It's a bit like someone who smokes a bit of weed at the weekend isn't the same as someone who injects heroin daily and how smoking cannabis doesn't automatically mean you're spirally towards a lifetime of heroin abuse.

Different people react to different stimuli differently and it's up to the parents to judge what their children are mature enough to handle some of the more adult content containing within some computer games.

Sadly though, "not all children are equal" and "let the parents judge what's best for their kids[i]" aren't as attention grabbing headlines as "[i]violent games make people violent".

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Tractor
by Tractor on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:50 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

Here is a rigorous, verifiable and repeatable scientific study result :
100% of firearm killers have been using firearms.

What about banning firearms ?

Reply Score: 1

Oh sure...
by deathshadow on Tue 12th Mar 2013 16:38 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Because of course people weren't the least bit violent before TV, movies and video games... because we haven't JUST ENDED a steady decrease in crime rates for a DECADE...

Quite literally, this is the first year here in the states in a DECADE we've seen increases:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/prelimin...

... and it's STILL lower than it was a decade ago. You'd think if the more and more violent media and games was causing violence, wouldn't those numbers be skyrocketing?

I'm so sure the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia were caused by violence in games and TV... Dimes to dollars the ignorant twits card stacking 'facts' to promote their own mind controlling agenda have likely never heard the names Ed Gein, Albert Fish, William H. Bonnie, Gilbert Twigg, Monroe Phillips, Gung Ung Chang, the Jones brothers... Jack...

Of course such "research" falls into pseudo-science land since they go in with the foregone conclusion "violence in media is evil" and then select all the facts to support that conclusion, omitting anything that dares to contradict them. That's why every time you have one of them running their mouths about it you see the classic seven propaganda techniques being parroted like a second rate Goebbels.

You want to know what causes violence? REAL violence? Racial intolerance, religious intolerance, poverty and greed. That's it, there's your list of REAL causes. But of course, those are way too hard to fix, so instead we have to dig up a scapegoat to vilify.

If we do see the trend of violence increasing in the so called civilized world, POVERTY is going to be far more to blame than video games. There's a reason there's more violence in the ghettos -- of course that doesn't make the news; you have some upper-middle class white kid flip his lid, it's pasted on every headline coast to coast... and whenever there's some new violent episode you get the idiots pouring out of the woodwork making wild claims that things are somehow worse now than they used to be.

When of course, the only reason one thinks that is your parents sheltering your from reality and a complete ignorance of history.

Because of course the South Central Riots of '92 (Rodney King) were so much worse than Watts, Dahmer was so much more horrific than Peter Stumpp or Elizabeth Bathory, and the Rwandan genocide was so much more massive than the Greek Genocide right after the first World War.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Oh sure...
by zima on Thu 14th Mar 2013 17:09 UTC in reply to "Oh sure..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you really remember all those names you listed? ;)

Reply Score: 2