Mammoth Jones
Member
If he doesn't get arrested I'm holding you personally responsible for not reporting him.
And yea, FFS report that kid.
If he doesn't get arrested I'm holding you personally responsible for not reporting him.
You suggested we don't feel the same way you do because our reasoning has been undermined by our enjoyment of games. You can't substantiate that claim without citing something other than your opinion. Frankly it's a bit shitty to dismiss objections to how you feel by telling us we're just too into games to know what we're talking about.
Feel free to speculate to your hearts content, but don't try to call out others without something to back you up.
You sure got your heckles up didn't ya? Are you positive that there isn't at least some kind of sociological impact due to violent games?Feel free to speculate to your hearts content, but don't try to call out others without something to back you up.
I'm looking at the bigger picture. Not how it affects a single person who may or may not be mentally unwell, but how it affects society and culture on a larger scale, the effects of which can matriculate over multiple generations even.
Yeah, he said ALL of that...you're something else man.
I don't know why people bother engaging in conversations with you.
You sure got your heckles up didn't ya? Are you positive that there isn't at least some kind of sociological impact due to violent games?
If he doesn't get arrested I'm holding you personally responsible for not reporting him.
My rebuttal to this would be Japan. They have the same violent entertainment media but violent crime is very low there. They also have tough restrictions on guns...
You can't look at "violent games" in a vacuum. It's possible that violent media (including games, movies, and so on) is responsible for exacerbating issues leading to violent outbursts in the mentally unstable, but what's responsible for the existence, prevalence, and general approval of violent media? There's a likely answer: a culture that glorifies violence, glorifies tools of violence, and glorifies the military, whose purpose is near solely to inflict violence. (I do not mean any disrespect to military folk with this, I am not saying that we shouldn't give respect those who are serving or have served our country, it's the disturbing near-deification that I take issue with)You sure got your heckles up didn't ya? Are you positive that there isn't at least some kind of sociological impact due to violent games?
Absolutely.You can't look at "violent games" in a vacuum.
Absolutely.
For my part I'm less worried about the possibility of violent games triggering the mentally disturbed, since a myriad of things could do exactly that. What bugs me is the repetition of violent acts day after day, and the affect that could have on children. Not meaning they turn into monsters, or even that they'd be prone to more aggression, but that a lowered sensitivity to hardcore violence and engaging in some HD warfare as a game could lead to some distorted world personal and world views when it comes to the reality of those events.
I'm still, at this moment disgusted by more than half of the games in my collection. I just don't want to think about them, and I am more than capable of separating illusions from reality. It just feels crass. Wrong. Its not games alone that bug me, but as somebody who games quite a bit, who also likes to opine and share on this very gaming forum, its been on my mind, and its been just under the surface for a while now.
They brought up Starcraft and Warcraft on CNN, "games which involve shooting." Why????
If violent video games cause children to be more violent, and assuming the number of violent games has not decreased year after year, why do violent crime statistics not reflect this relationship? Why are video game revenues so high yet the crime rate continues to go down?
Wait... really? So no clear motive? Was she even a teacher?
This.
I mean, I know this event was tragic and horrific but crime is still at a 40 year low.
I don't necessarily disagree. I haven't bought games of that nature in years now (CoD, BF, etc. Scifi stuff like Halo I'm still alright with though) because I gradually found them more and more repulsive and disturbing to the point where I didn't even want to play them at all. Stomach turning.Absolutely.
For my part I'm less worried about the possibility of violent games triggering the mentally disturbed, since a myriad of things could do exactly that. What bugs me is the repetition of violent acts day after day, and the affect that could have on children. Not meaning they turn into monsters, or even that they'd be prone to more aggression, but that a lowered sensitivity to hardcore violence and engaging in some HD warfare as a game could lead to some distorted personal and world views when it comes to the reality of those events.
I'm still, at this moment disgusted by more than half of the games in my collection. I just don't want to think about them, and I am more than capable of separating illusions from reality. It just feels crass. Wrong. Its not games alone that bug me, but as somebody who games quite a bit, who also likes to opine and share on this very gaming forum, its been on my mind, and its been just under the surface for a while now.
For the record I'm not saying that relationship exists. And I know people keep bringing up the rate of violent crime, but I'm pretty sure the rate is not the issue nearly as much as the potency of some of these attacks. A single person, killing so many, so quickly.If violent video games cause children to be more violent, and assuming the number of violent games has not decreased year after year, why do violent crime statistics not reflect this relationship? Why are video game revenues so high yet the crime rate continues to go down?
Yep.It's just not a games only thing though. It's a deep-rooted issue within all forms of media.
I don't think so. She was, alegidly, a survivalist and had six guns. She had been teaching her son to shoot. No clear motive yet.
Why would she need to be a survivalist if his dad was paying the bills?
Thats different. The cheering was specifically for the scene of someones head getting blown off. No one would take issue with cheering for the game itself.
They were "preparing" for whatever survivalists think is coming, the collapse of the way of life we are used to.
They were both rich. She was a stockbroker. She was obviously one of the ones who bought more guns because she was afraid Obama was coming for her guns. I guess he probably should have.Why would she need to be a survivalist if his dad was paying the bills?
Yep. And I mean, it isn't the shooting that gets the coverage. It's the shooter. I've seen this douches face plastered on TV since Saturday morning. It's like he's become the worst form of celebrity and we give these maniacs the attention they desperately crave. It's like we remember him more than the victims.
I really wish the media would identify the killer once and then that's it. Don't reference his name after that. No constant pictures on TV. No wikipedia page.
Piers Morgan is going off on some gun advocate at the moment. Looks like he's ready to lose his shit.
I don't get the logic of people saying "if the victims had guns then she/he could defend her/himself more properly against crazy people with guns."
It's like saying, "to solve gun problems, use guns!" ...What?
It's like something a gun peddler would say in an infomercial or something.
Pro gun people tend to have some serious self-defense fantasies going on...I don't get the logic of people saying "if the victims had guns then she/he could defend her/himself more properly against crazy people with guns."
It's like saying, "to solve gun problems, use guns!" ...What?
It's like something a gun peddler would say in an infomercial or something.
I don't get the logic of people saying "if the victims had guns then she/he could defend her/himself more properly against crazy people with guns."
It's like saying, "to solve gun problems, use guns!" ...What?
It's like something a gun peddler would say in an infomercial or something.
What I don't get is even in their perfect self-defense fantasy someone still ends up dead. Shouldn't the goal of a humane society be to ensure that nobody gets blown away, bad guy or not? I'm not saying lethal force isn't justified in cases where you are in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death, but wouldn't it be better to try to address the causes of violence before someone goes on a mass shooting spree? If the answer to the lack of mental health services in our country is to ignore it and wait until to people snap so we can kill them, it just sounds weird.
For the record I'm not saying that relationship exists. And I know people keep bringing up the rate of violent crime, but I'm pretty sure the rate is not the issue nearly as much as the potency of some of these attacks. A single person, killing so many, so quickly.
Not only are we seeing too many of these attacks, but the bodycounts and depravity is staggering.
My personal gripe with violent media and gaming in particular has more to do with stunting empathy as well as a lack of creativity on the part of our digital artists (including designers). I do think that the images that make up the bulk of your mental diet are important and game developers should strive to do more than stroke that violent id.
I sure as hell don't hold any games, or gaming, or the media, or any simplistic area as the cause for Friday's tragedy.
Yep.
There have been studies that linked violent videogames to "aggressive" behavior.
Care to substantiate this claim? I'd like to take a look at those studies. My hunch is that 'aggressive behavior' is poorly defined and that the young male demographic, which tends to commit more violent crime, also happens to be the same demographic that most often plays violent video games.
You post a vague summary with more theorizing and guess work than facts? You could be a politician!
You post a vague summary with more theorizing and guess work than facts? You could be a politician!
I don't get the logic of people saying "if the victims had guns then she/he could defend her/himself more properly against crazy people with guns."
It's like saying, "to solve gun problems, use guns!" ...What?
It's like something a gun peddler would say in an infomercial or something.
First, video game play is active whereas watching TV is passive. People learn better when they are actively involved. Suppose you wanted to learn how to fly an airplane. What would be the best method to use: read a book, watch a TV program, or use a video game flight simulator?
Do video game flight simulators really make people learn flying better?... -_-"
The problem with the whole "video games are active!" argument is that they always overestimate the ability of games when it comes to replicating actual motions...
Do video game flight simulators really make people learn flying better?... -_-"
The problem with the whole "video games are active!" argument is that they always overestimate the ability of games when it comes to replicating actual motions...
They use them in the Navy for training. So I imagine they probably do.
Flight sims are a bit different to murder sims. You use the same motion/controls for the sim as a real aircraft, so you can work on the actual skillsets involved.
But from what I understand these sims are generally not available/sold as video games right?
MS Flight Simulator and others are pretty damn detailed in how they handle things.
Lockheed Martin use it as the base for one of their products: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Prepar3D
The problem is if you look over 130 cases with a set agenda, you'll find enough to prove your point, especially when you don't list how these tests were conducted or what the conditions were. There are so many variables in this situation that one well conducted experiment would have more grounding than 130 vague assertions.It references quite a few papers, one of which is a survey of 130 something other papers. Do I need to go find links to the referenced papers for you, or do you think you can handle that by yourself?
The problem is if you look over 130 cases with a set agenda, you'll find enough to prove your point, especially when you don't list how these tests were conducted or what the conditions were. There are so many variables in this situation that one well conducted experiment would have more grounding than 130 vague assertions.
It references quite a few papers, one of which is a survey of 130 something other papers. Do I need to go find links to the referenced papers for you, or do you think you can handle that by yourself?
I would think that you would learn best by flying an airplane. This is a throwaway quote, though, in that I am throwing it away because it is stupid and unsubstantiated.People learn better when they are actively involved. Suppose you wanted to learn how to fly an airplane. What would be the best method to use: read a book, watch a TV program, or use a video game flight simulator?
Pay as a reward being directly tied to performance is kind of an outdated idea in psychology, is it not? And going to work the next day because of a reward is a bit different than punching someone in the face because it was modeled as rewarding in a video game.article said:Third, violent games directly reward violent behavior, such as by awarding points or by allowing players to advance to the next game level. In some games, players are rewarded through verbal praise, such as hearing the words "Nice shot!" after killing an enemy. It is well known that rewarding behavior increases its frequency. (Would you go to work tomorrow if your boss said you would no longer be paid?)