New Study: Most Teenagers are Unaffected by Violent Gaming

tim98042

New member
Mar 17, 2010
177
0
0
wow it took them how long and how much money to come up with this final answer, for god sake what a waste of money. Well done you smart researchers. lol
 

FallenJellyDoughnut

New member
Jun 28, 2009
2,753
0
0
DeathWyrmNexus said:
Jiraiya72 said:
We've only been saying this for how long..
Ya but at least somebody said it from a position of "authority" instead of us poor maladjusted gamers. *sigh*

I do like that the person specifically said that people aren't blank slates thus the Devil Made Me Do It excuse is weak. Rapists buy porn but porn doesn't make rapists. The reason that rapists buy porn as opposed to the reason the normal guy buys porn is what makes him a rapist.

Sorry, this is one of my pet internet fights and thus I am a little too happy to have more ammo. So you get your choice of hug, fist bump, or high five to help me celebrate.
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)
 

Mechsoap

New member
Apr 4, 2010
2,129
0
0
i dont even know why fox and other wiitards got the idea that video games couse shootings while tv shows splatters daily
 

Rack

New member
Jan 18, 2008
1,379
0
0
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"
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
Sovvolf said:
Glademaster said:
So once again Science has wasted its time proving something most non idiots already knew way before this.
I wouldn't say wasted. I think this is an excellent use of time because it helps discredit the anti-video game crowd from a position of authority. Yes most of us know that it doesn't affect us however our claims are discredited because of our love of the subject makes us bias. Along with the fact that most aren't going to accept the words of us evil gamers.
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.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
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 :p
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Sovvolf said:
Therumancer said:
Wow Theru, as much as I appreciate the effort you put into your posts, I feel like you need to prioritize your message. I write a small paragraph and I'm bombarded me with 10 large paragraphs. You blame the left wingers for doing the same as the right wingers, both are just as much to blame, both sides want to take away your freedoms. The right wing are more wanting to take away the freedoms of those that the bible doesn't like. The freedoms of people wanting to have abortions, the freedoms of homosexuals, the freedoms of those that don't follow the bible with the sounds of things.

The problem with all political figures, no matter which side... they just want control, that's what a government does... control. We just pick who we'd rather be controlled by, either side is going to do things the other doesn't like, both sides are going to take away our freedoms. Which in some cases isn't that bad of a thing, you your self on the porn poll made a statement about peadophiles... their freedoms should be taken from them if they act up shouldn't they?. They rape or touch a child (inappropriately) they should be jailed shouldn't they?. Same goes for murderers, thieves and other criminals.

Both sides are hypocrites which is why I don't stand for one side... I keep my self in the middle.

Sarah Palin and McCain haven't been involved in video games (as far as I know) but Sarah as been involved in trying to censor the content of a library in Alaska. Which I'm sure you'd be against just as much as you would for video games. She was trying to stop people from reading books about evolution I think.

In October 1996, Palin asked the library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, if she would object to the removal of a book from the library if people were picketing to have the book removed.[63] Emmons responded that she would not be the only one objecting: "And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too."[63] In early December, Palin made a written statement about the book removal request, saying she had been trying to get to know her staff and had been discussing many issues with them "both rhetorical and realistic in nature."[63] No books were removed and no attempt was made to remove books from the library during Palin's tenure as mayor

Well reading the whole page shows many attempts to violate freedom of speech.
Just think if she got in power... what do you think she'd do regarding video games? Would she ban all video games that don't show God in a positive light?.

I'm sure some liberals have worse thoughts on what to do with video games. However you seem to be putting all the blame on liberals, I'm sure a learned man such as your self understands that neither side is innocent of this.
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.

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.
 

Cherry Cola

Your daddy, your Rock'n'Rolla
Jun 26, 2009
11,940
0
0
Suki the Cat said:
So much truth in so few words.

Still, I'm glad they actually made a study of it instead of dismissing it like they always seem to do
 

oranger

New member
May 27, 2008
704
0
0
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.
 

pianoman

New member
Aug 26, 2008
23
0
0
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...
 

JEBWrench

New member
Apr 23, 2009
2,572
0
0
Hooray! A study that confirms that videogames will enhance the neurotic tendencies of some teenagers.

(Seriously, that's what I gathered from it. And we're praising this?)
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Therumancer said:
Sovvolf said:
Therumancer said:
To be honest Therumancer I think both sides are as bad as each other for it. I can't imagine people like Sarah Palin or John McCain being any more lenient on games... I actually think they'd be the opposite... To the point of trying to get it banned all together. I mean Sarah Palin tried to get books detailing evolution pulled from a library before, taking away a form of free speech and trying to control what you can and can't read. John McCain tried to ban MMA (almost succeeded) and I imagine if he was in power he'd try to do the exact same thing with video games.
Well, as I said, there are people involved on this on both sides, however it's mostly a left wing issue, which is why we're seeing more of it now, and so much slanted media.

For the most part Republicans don't like a lot of this stuff, but are believers in limited govermental powers. The whole video game issue ties in heavily with other attempts to do away with the right to free speech, and attack things like so called "hate speech" which is something un-politically correct Republicans are frequently attacked with. Even when you get into the more lunatic right wing fringe that throws in a lot of religious overtones, again free speech is one of the cornerstones they use to defend what their right to speak when you have liberals screaming "OMG, nobody should be allowed to say that".

For the left wing it's both a power grab, but also the belief that they can pretty much quash some of their biggest opponents in a nation that's divided almost 50-50, if they can prevent the other side from speaking entirely.

Video games and the content there cover a lot of the same ground, basically if the goverment gets the abillity to censor games for content, it can take the precedent to also censor OTHER media for content. In many respects giving the goverment a power of moral censorship.

It really doesn't matter how they achieve the goal, which is why you see a multi-pronged attack with guys like Obama on one hand trying to blame video games for health problems that have been a growing issue before video games were anywhere near so prevelent (and come with any successful, technological, sedimentary civilization), and people like Hillary Clinton on the other hand going "OMG, sex and violence, protect the children". The media which supports the left wing also being rallied to pretty much find any excuse they can to tie a negative story into video gaming.

If this sounds like a conspiricy theory, well consider that it IS organized, as far as politics usually are. There are no shadowy, illuminati type meetings, but the general policy has definatly been set. What's more while it's a power grab for many of the people involved, I also think there are those who genuinely believe in the cause.

Right now while there are right wing people involved in this (everything goes cross party to some extent) I do not remember Mccain or Palin ever being involved in this issue on any meaningful level. At least not to the point of seeing articles about them leading anti-video game charges.

The bottom line is that I feel this issue is important enough to the point where if the video game "front" is lost, we pretty much lose everything (the snowball will roll even further). We can see direct action and statements going to the highest levels of the goverment right now, and the issue is important enough where even wars are petty in comparison (even if millions of people die in wars, your dealing with far more people losing their freedoms accross generations if precedent is more successfully established).

It's not happening tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll say more on the subject comes up (and get flamed doubtlessly) but the bottom line is that barring people who are screaming "yes I want to ban video games outright! The liberals' censorship attempts don't fo far enough" chances are we should get the guys in power out of there. As important as their jobs are, the fact that guys like Obama or Clinton will still find time to make comments about this issue (on any level) should sort of make it clear how big a deal this actually is.

As much as I love video games, part of it is that I see this as being part of a bigger issue, and one that has been brewing for a long time. I think it started when the whole "political correctness" thing started to become a pop-culture buzzword, and we started seeing people attacking "hate speech". It started out mild (as I mentioned) but now we've got something very specific and the issue more or less boils down to the goverment saying "you must protect the children! quickly, give us the power of moral censorship, and we will get rid of these bad video games that are causing all these problems, and make sure nothing similar happens again!". Which is of course based on bot a lie (games causing these problems), and the simple fact that people were being groomed step by step, and were pretty quick to engage in private censorship/censure against so called "hate speech" (which actually doesn't have a clear definition) with little concern for the bigger, overall picture... what it says for the idea of free speech, and human rights. Any strong, contrary opinion about anyone can technically be considered hate speech by someone...
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.

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.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
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.

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.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
Therumancer said:
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.

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?