New Study: Most Teenagers are Unaffected by Violent Gaming
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Do you have any links to some of the rest of your ammo? I just need more studies to help show my english teacher that he's an impressionable prick who watches too much Fox News. (not that I ever called him that, although I did mention that Fox News is a terrible source for a credible argument)DeathWyrmNexus said:
Fox News exclusive: Are videogames turning your children into zombie killers?
New study claims electronical games "turns kids into slavering zombie killers" The study also found examples of kids being "highly neurotic, less agreeable and less conscientious" after playing violent video games. The report went on to say that "individuals who play violent videogames will inevitably become aggressive"
New study claims electronical games "turns kids into slavering zombie killers" The study also found examples of kids being "highly neurotic, less agreeable and less conscientious" after playing violent video games. The report went on to say that "individuals who play violent videogames will inevitably become aggressive"
I suppose but this why eugenic always is seeming more attractive to me day in day out. As anyone who doesn't have at least half a brain or a moral compass should be canonised. By that I mean fired, out of a giant canon, into space.Sovvolf said:
so we should like mail the Governator and any other politician whom seem dead set against all things VVG this study and the scores of others that say the same thing.
When the exception to the rule becomes excepted as the rule; this is where all the closed minded ppl come from
When the exception to the rule becomes excepted as the rule; this is where all the closed minded ppl come from
Cutting through a lot of the chase, it seems like Sarah Palin was mostly making inquiries. More along the lines of when Bill Clinton put out a survey to the military that asked troops whether they would fire on US civilians on his order. Without understanding the backround of the entire thing it's difficult to put into perspective.Sovvolf said:
That said, as I pointed out the issue does go cross party, I'm speaking in a general sense. I'm not saying that we should elect anyone paticular into office, but more along the lines that we should vote people currently in office out, based on what they have been saying and doing on this issue.
Of course it would be a moot point if come the next series of elections for the house/president if BOTH sides have an anti-speech/video games stance. Right now I'm just saying we know from what's going on that the people in power currently do.
So much truth in so few words.Suki the Cat said:
Still, I'm glad they actually made a study of it instead of dismissing it like they always seem to do
I often wonder why the civilized world does not institute some sort of "over-haul" of existing scientific institutions, ones that we all rely upon to know the truth? the ones that exist today are obviously behind the times. Who has heard of "The Lucifer Effect"? its new science, explains a LOT, and yet, it has yet to be integrated.
My mind = completly blown. (/sarcasm)
I'm glad that people are starting to realize something we've only been saying for years. That woman who's all up in arms about a math video game that is interesting (check Kotaku if you don't know what I'm talking about) should take a look at this...
I'm glad that people are starting to realize something we've only been saying for years. That woman who's all up in arms about a math video game that is interesting (check Kotaku if you don't know what I'm talking about) should take a look at this...
No. Just no. Hillary Clinton may be a Democrat, but a liberal she is not. If Dennis Kucinich or Barney Frank start spewing anti-videogame rhetoric, then maybe you'll have a point, but don't go lumping everyone in with Hillary Clinton. As for Obama's comment, that wasn't a blanket "videogames are bad" statement. It was a half-joking comment at a college commencement speech where he basically said "don't play so many games that you neglecct your studies," as far as I can tell to show that he was tuned in to the current generation.Therumancer said:
Also, the republicans haven't really been for limited government in decades. Not only did the government expand to an incredible degree under President Bush, but it is the conservatives who tend to spearhead censorship efforts. Book bannings, the burning of Beatle's records in the '60s, heck, even the California Videogame law -- all conservative movements. (The law was at the very least signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, a republican; It wouldn't surprise me if it was republicans who spearheaded it through the state legislature as well.) For that matter, look at hot button issues like gay marriage and abortion. Wouldn't the more limited government approach be to stay out of people's lives? So why is it that the Republican platform is anti-choice and anti-gay marriage, but the Democratic platform is okay with both?
The answer is that the republican party isn't really a group of fiscal and constitutional conservatives anymore, it's mostly made up of social conservatives -- who are exactly the kind of people who go around trying to ban things they disagree with. A social liberal wouldn't really care what a person does in private; a social conservative usually can't stand the thought of anyone not conforming to their conservative mores.
Actually Obama did more than that, as I said it's a multi-pronged attack. We have the whole "protect the children" thing, and him going after it by claiming that it's responsible for health issues.
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/06/15/obama-names-video-games-health-concern-speech-ama
There are other incidents as well, but that one is the most well documented.
Do not misunderstand what I am saying here. While I tend to agree with the Republicans on more things than the Democrats, I'm not a "zombie" for either side. If you've ever heard me talk about worker's rights and unions and such you should know this.
I myself have said that the issue is one that has crossed party lines. Republicans have been involved in the issue as well, but the left wing (I intentionally do not talk about the Democratic party specifically) has been the one pushing it in a big way, and has also been most effective in doing so. Like it or not, with certain rare exceptions the media does have a left wing bias, and right now due to the left wing push the media has been involved in pushing attacks on video games (and moral censorship) in a big way. We see tons of articles coming from the news nowadays trying to tie anything they can into something that can be blamed on gaming. Some of it is pretty idiotic.
The problem not so much being that we should be attacking all Democrats, BUT that we should be working on getting this paticular combination of people out of power, speaking not only for The White House (Obama appointed Hillary) but also congress and the senate as well.
This of course depending a lot on who is running against them as well, it is possible that any rivals would be even worse on the issue when the elections come around.
Points about "oh well, there have been Republicans who have been worse" or "well imagine what Sarah Palin might have done if she was in power" are pretty much irrelevent since it comes down to what is actually going on now, and stopping it.
There are other issues involved in elections as well, however I feel this is a big issue that trumps pretty much everything else given the long term repercussions. See, issues like video games and censorship were not an issue raised during the last elections. It largely came down to discussions about things like "The War On Terror", "National Health Coverage", and the of course the economy. All of those are important issues, and affect millions of people, however none of that matters if the right to free speech and expression is threatened and honestly, nobody even bothered to spend much time looking at what the cantidates thought about that. I voted Republican (for overall reasons), but was more or less neutral on Obama's stance on this issue because really he hadn't said much. I was however very anti-Clinton. However he has shown that while he takes a differant direction in his attacks, he still very much attacks video games, and wants to see control of them... which of course is about more than video games because of the precedent it establishes. Moral censorship of the media, for either health reasons, or to "protect the children" is wrong.
I expect this will not be a major focus in the media in the coming elections (all levels), the media also by and large being oriented in an anti-video game direction. I think we, as gamers, and those who care about free speech in general, need to make it an issue, and not support anyone who wants to control video games or address them as a problem, for ANY reason.
Now, of course if it so happens that the other cantidates are just as bad, or worse, then it comes down to a "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" equasion, and it can come down to other issues. Right now the big thing is that the Obama/Clinton team is bad news. Even if Obama didn't sound off like he has, the bottom line is that he STILL put Hillary into power, and irregardless of whether anyone wants to consider her a 'real democrat' or not, she has a lot of following, a lot of connections, and a lot of power to be used through her office towards this agenda. At this point whatever she does reflects directly on Obama because any way you look at it, he's the one who empowered her this way.
If we're going to get into this discussion, we need to take it to the religion and politics board. However, I'm not going to let that comment about president Obama's "multi pronged" attack on videogames slide. What he said in the case of the speech you mentioned was that kids need to go out and play more, so they don't wind up obese before they even hit adulthood. In both cases, he was preaching moderation through personal responsibility, not removal through a governmental ban. He could have just as easily used the example of sitting in front of the T.V., but he didn't, because videogames are a more relevant example today. What, pray tell, is so bad about that?Therumancer said: