Oct 21 2002, 4:53 pm
In response to Garthor
|
|
OneFishDown
 |
If you choose misunderstand what I am saying, I cannot stop you. It makes no sense for me to repeat myself again. Go back and read what I said.
|
I've played many, many violent video games... I've watched many, many violent movies and TV shows... I've listened to many of the musical artists that are blamed for these sorts of things...
And do I have any desire to kill someone? Not a bit... Have I ever in my lifetime even so much as violently hit someone? Nope... It's not the media that causes it... The media may have some triggering effect, but the sickness is definitely there beforehand... | |
OneFishDown wrote:
A 24 year old brazilian named Mateus Meira opened fire in a movie theater (in Brazil), killing three and injuring eight. He claims that he was inspired by Duke Nukem 3d. The shooters in the Colombine event were fans of the game Doom. While millions of other people were fans of those two games, perhaps there is something in the games that brings out a violent nature in them. The people of course must have had severe mental issues to begin with. There is definately a valid argument that video games cause violence. You're mixing up correlation and causation. These people liked violent video games, and they committed acts of violence. This does nothing to establish cause and effect. I bet they also wore clothes, too--does wearing clothes cause violence? As far as I'm concerned, these people aren't committing acts of real violence because they enjoy committing acts of virtual violence--my view is that since they're already prone to real violence, of course they're going to enjoy committing acts of virtual violence. Yes, there are probably people out there who play these sorts of games just for the sick pleasure of digitized violence, and these games probably aren't helping them get over that--these sorts of people should have minimized contact with violent games. But other people (I can name at least 2, and given all the FPS fans out there I'd be willing to say there might be as many as 6, 8, or even 10 out there) simply enjoy them for the excellent tactical situations they create. | |
My general rule is that people will always argue for whatever they like. If they like violent games, they sure aren't going to try and convince people that they're bad, or that they CAN BE bad.
The point that OFD was trying to make, though, is not that everyone who plays violent games will be inspired to commit violent acts. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who are. | |
I bet more people woh play violent games would commit violent acts if they weren't playing those games, than there are people who commit violent acts BECAUSE of those games.
| |
I have had times when i felt like i wanted to kill people,but i wouldn't.
yesterday in school i was daydreaming about bombing our school. | |
The 24 old Brazilian guy said himself that he was inspired to open fire in a movie theater because of playing Duke Nukem 3d. I am not saying that all people that play video games are inspired to go out and kill people. But, some people (maybe just 2 people on the whole planet) may be committing violent acts because of violence in video games. These weren't normal people that played a violent game and then wanted to kill; I'd imagine that they had mental problems to begin with.
| |
OneFishDown wrote:
The 24 old Brazilian guy said himself that he was inspired to open fire in a movie theater because of playing Duke Nukem 3d. I am not saying that all people that play video games are inspired to go out and kill people. But, some people (maybe just 2 people on the whole planet) may be committing violent acts because of violence in video games. These weren't normal people that played a violent game and then wanted to kill; I'd imagine that they had mental problems to begin with. If the premise is true though, that violent video games push some over the edge, we should be able to find a statistical correlation. Let's try. If the hypothesis is true: - A country with more violent video games than another country should have more violent crime. - The violent crime rate in a country should have gone up during the period of video game availability. Let's test it out in a couple of places: Japan has a culture filled with violence and violent video games (not to mention bizarre porn). How's Japan's crime rate? Hmm, very low. Hardly any. Hmm. The US has had an explosion of video games over the past 25 years. How has the US crime rate gone? Oh, it's gone down. Hmm. Well, keep trying. | |
Yes, so it's possible that those people committed acts of violence because of videogames. Or... how's this for a crazy hypothesis... maybe those two people committed acts of violence because they like to commit acts of violence! I know what you're thinking, but just bear with me here. Pretend--I know it's a big leap of imagination, but just try--that these people liked violence, and as a result of their liking violence, they played violent videogames. Also imagine that, since they liked violence in the first place, they eventually committed acts of violence.
Sure, they could have very well said that they did what they did because of Duke Nukem. They can say whatever they please--these are psychopaths we're talking about, remember? If I commit murder and claim I did it because I can't stand Old Navy commercials, how many knee-jerk politicians would be claiming a link between Old Navy and violent crime? Let's go ahead and assume that violent media do catalyse (note I say catalyse, not cause) violence; what if violent videogames are banned or massively restricted? Gee, it's a good thing that there's no violence in the 5000 years of culture prior to the advent of videogames for looneys to get inspired by! A helluva lot more people have claimed to be moved to murder by the Bible than have claimed to be moved to murder by violent videogames. I think it's time we do something about this corrupting influence on our youth once and for all! | |
The dumb thing is saying we should ban violent games or put a stop to them just because of that .01% of the population that are pushed over the edge by their violent nature. Actually, there is just as much speculation that violent games helps PREVENT violence as there is that it causes it; it allows you to vent your hard feeling and releive your stress. The adrenaline that violent games can cause your body to make is healthy, so I'd say that if anything they're more of a blessing then they are a curse.
Hockey players sometimes beat each other over the heads with sticks. Kids sometimes hit each other with sticks. Is hockey being banned or even questioned for that reason? Heck no. -LoW | |
I never said that the number of violent video games on the market is in proportion to the number of crimes committed. I was merely stating a few instances where video games have been taken some of the blame for crimes. The video games are not completely at fault (if they are even at fault at all). If you want to read into what I say, or misinterpret what I said, then go ahead. All I did was say that video games have been blamed for violent acts.
Do I think that violent games should be banned? Nope. Do I think that violent games can cause violent behavior? Possibly, but it is in a small (very very small) percentage of people that this would occur in. Its not a large enough of a percent for any action to need to be taken. My point is no that video games DO cause violence, but that they MIGHT. | |
I played Diablo 2 for a month.
I have this sudden urge to run around with a flameberge and slice off peoples heads. Maybe if I kill my boss, he'll do a cool explosion animation where his guts will fly everywhere in a 5x5 tile radius. | |
Penny Arcade's Archived Classics:
The Longest Line http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=1999-12-13&res=l | |
OneFishDown wrote:
I never said that the number of violent video games on the market is in proportion to the number of crimes committed. I was merely stating a few instances where video games have been taken some of the blame for crimes. The video games are not completely at fault (if they are even at fault at all). If you want to read into what I say, or misinterpret what I said, then go ahead. All I did was say that video games have been blamed for violent acts. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, nor did I say that you or anyone would agree with the propositions I was putting forth. What I am trying to do, for anyone in the discussion who believes or wants to believe that video games may contribute to violence, is come up with some objective criteria on which to examine the question. This is not just an academic exercise for me. I used to think differently about guns than I do today; one sober look at "murder by gun" and "overall murder" statistics between countries that have gun control and those that don't, and I made a 180 degree switch in my opinion. (I'm only bringing that up to show my approach to making up my mind -- let's not turn this into a gun control topic if avoidable.) Often people base their opinions about things on the concept that "everything is getting worse, and this must be the reason". I even challenge that -- most statistics, for the US anyway, have in fact gotten better in the past two generations. While at the same time you can show historically that every generation in the past 100 years has felt that "this new-fangled thing is destroying our children like nothing ever has before". For example, in the 20s it was Jazz -- Jazz was treated way worse than violent video games are now. Later on it was various things, until we reached the decade where Dungeons & Dragons was making kids suicidal/violent, and now video games are doing it. So I look at the historical trend and the overall crime/murder statistics, and I derive this hypothesis: "Every generation feels things are getting worse even if they are demonstrably getting better, and every generation feels that something new is destroying the children." That's the trend. Doesn't mean they aren't right about destroying the children, but if that is in fact happening, there must be some objective way to observe it in action, which I have yet to find. | |
A 24 year old brazilian named Mateus Meira opened fire in a movie theater (in Brazil), killing three and injuring eight. He claims that he was inspired by Duke Nukem 3d. He has serious problems then... The shooters in the Colombine event were fans of the game Doom. I beleive that was just some excuse they made up to make others think they are less innocent. Can anyone even name one store that sells the game doom, or even doom 2? They might've found it somewhere, but you fight monsters/aliens that are no way like a human. While millions of other people were fans of those two games, perhaps there is something in the games that brings out a violent nature in them. The people of course must have had severe mental issues to begin with. There is definately a valid argument that video games cause violence. I think videogames cause less violance. They allow people to take their rage out on things so they don't take it out on real people. While it does let people know there is violance, it does not always tell them that's the solution to everything. If videogames do cause people to be more violent, then you'd see ALLOT more shootings and attacks in the news. | |
Geo wrote:
If videogames do cause people to be more violent, then you'd see ALLOT more shootings and attacks in the news. I wrote: perhaps there is something in the games that brings out a violent nature in them. The people of course must have had severe mental issues to begin with. Please read what I say and then reply to it. If you don't comprehend the words I am saying, then don't reply. I never said that video games cause violent bahivior in everyone, or the majority of the people, or in anyone for that matter. Some of the enemies in Doom closely resemble humans (the guys with pistols, the ones with shotguns, and the chain-gunners). Maybe it was an excuse, but we don't know. You don't know how messed up these kids' minds were, so you can't tell how they interpreted the violence in video games. I understand your point that video games might cause less violence. But if someone is so determined to kill, could playing a game lessen the urges to kill? I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that while it might help make people not be violent, it might go the other way too; the game might be what inspires the person to act upon their violent urges. | |
I have to agree fully on this! I myself try not to cause struggles for my own pleasure, I don't even think going on a mass killing spree is needed in most first person shooters. When I get on Soldier of Fortune 2, I usually have 2 other friends on the phone, if we are playing a CTF map we never even try to kill anyone unless if we have the flag and are trying to escape, or we are defending someone who has the flag. The only reason I get on team fortress classic is because I like being a mechanic and building turrets to defend my base, I rely on other team members to guard me and the turret until it is fully upgraded. I now refuse to play Counter-Strike because of the fan base.... The only time I have ever played as a team was ironically on a cheaters server, everyone there had the latest OGC hacks and what not, and then again nobody was getting mad at each other and the teams worked together. It also created a need for fast reaction so you could move out of the walls way when you hear an AWP(Instant kill sniper rifle, shoots through most walls) shot fired off.
I don't really see how violence in games can lead to violence in real life though, in games you know you have a second chance, but in real life there is this constant fear of dieing. Now I don't know about you people, but I am not fixing to go out shooting people just because I had a good sniping round defending my base on Desert Crisis, or just because I got a 100 frag and 35 death count on TFC. Trust me, if that was in any case a reason to go out and blow someones head off then I would very well not be posting this message. <<>>Kusanagi<<>> | |
Speaking of the difficulty and complexity of the real world, the outcome of the sniper situation brings up an old question for me. This is not a rhetorical question:
Given that the Oklahoma City bomber and the sniper were both trained in the US military to kill people, and given that we give thousands of kids each year actual guns and train them to kill actual people with them, why is it we worry about video games as a possible source of violence? To keep this from being overly simplistic, let me lay out some context: - At least two former US military members have become mass murderers, just in the past decade; at least one of them was using the skills he was taught in the military. Between them they killed more people than have died in all the school shootings combined. - Almost every modern kid plays video games, yet we can't come up with any real trend showing increased violence from those kids due to the games. Best we can say is something like "For 15 minutes after watching violent TV, kids are worked up a bit." - This isn't an anti-military screed. The US must have a military, and it must train some people to kill. The point is, perhaps rather than chasing phantoms that we can't quantify, we should spend our energy figuring out how to ensure that kids who actually are being trained to kill (and therefore, at least in some situations, being desensitized to killing) are being trained/monitored in ways that will reduce their likelihood to later become mass murderers. I am struck by the fact that I have yet to hear a single media outlet suggest that perhaps we should be concerned about military personnel...yet you know that if they ever find one of the two sniper guys played Super Mario ten years ago, we'll never hear the end of it. | |