Mind if move to America where you have a bill of rights?Hurr Durr Derp said:
This oppresion just doesn't cut it for me anymore.
Report: Effects of Gaming Worse Than "Smoking on Lung Cancer"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
This oppresion just doesn't cut it for me anymore.
I can't help but notice -again- that the existence of a link between violent games and violence does not imply a causal relationship.
I don't play MW2 because I don't like gunning down realistic people with realistic guns. That happens too much in the real world. But an abstract, tactical multiplayer shooter like TF2 or Quake is ok because it is more of a game with rules and less of a murder simulator.
People who buy MW2 may be doing it BECAUSE they can gun down realistic people with realistic guns, which might indicate that they like gunning down people, and some of them might get their hands on dad's uzi and do it in real life. The game is the symptom, not the cause.
Maybe games should return to their roots of being a 'game' (as in, competitive entertainment) instead of a movie simulator. It frees up the developers to be creative and avoids thorny discussions like this.
I don't play MW2 because I don't like gunning down realistic people with realistic guns. That happens too much in the real world. But an abstract, tactical multiplayer shooter like TF2 or Quake is ok because it is more of a game with rules and less of a murder simulator.
People who buy MW2 may be doing it BECAUSE they can gun down realistic people with realistic guns, which might indicate that they like gunning down people, and some of them might get their hands on dad's uzi and do it in real life. The game is the symptom, not the cause.
Maybe games should return to their roots of being a 'game' (as in, competitive entertainment) instead of a movie simulator. It frees up the developers to be creative and avoids thorny discussions like this.
Once again a "study" by a group that only survive and gets funding by making up it's own terrifying claims to spread doom gloom and fear to get more funding to battle said made up problem.
Kids who say video games made them be violent and allowing them to walk is like believing a kids invisible friend broke the vase in the living room while the kid is holding a baseball bat.
If you humor them now they will blame other things all their lives.
Kids who say video games made them be violent and allowing them to walk is like believing a kids invisible friend broke the vase in the living room while the kid is holding a baseball bat.
If you humor them now they will blame other things all their lives.
Yeah see, no, the problem with gaming affecting children at a young age is because stupid parents let kids play games they shouldn't when they are too young to play said games. Blame the parents for letting their kids play these games, not the games themselves, games are meant to be an escape from reality, something to enjoy for either the adrenaline it offers, the entertainment it gives or otherwise the joyous moments you remember when you're older, or experience while playing them.
Parents should also always be aware of what kind of game a kid buys if they are given pocket money for example. I know mine were always careful to make sure I didn't go buying things that weren't good for me. Or I would have been playing things like Wu Tang Taste the Pain, and thinking it was cool to be a gangster running around beating people over the head with a sledgehammer (yes its an old game but its an example of what was around in my time as a child).
Instead I was raised on more lighthearted games and picked up the more violent ones as I got older. And honestly I would go back to playing electronic chinese checkers JUST for the sake of nostalgia.
The arguments that gaming affects a child are true enough, yes, it does affect young children, I've seen some real little terrors sprout up, but I always have to wander "What exactly has this kid been playing or watching that allowed or taught them to act this way?" and just as importantly "Who let this happen?"
The gaming industry is NOT responsible for the worlds children and what they do, THE PARENTS ARE.
Now if a company aims a game toward teaching a child violent or hateful manners, then you can throw extra blame on them if you want but I don't think there's a world conspiracy of game companies out there waiting to corrupt the children of the world by force-feeding them things they shouldn't think of, consider or know about the world earlier than they should.
I could keep going but I'd be saying the same stuff over and over so I think I'll stop there. Now I'm going to go enjoy a nice relaxing game of Chime.
Parents should also always be aware of what kind of game a kid buys if they are given pocket money for example. I know mine were always careful to make sure I didn't go buying things that weren't good for me. Or I would have been playing things like Wu Tang Taste the Pain, and thinking it was cool to be a gangster running around beating people over the head with a sledgehammer (yes its an old game but its an example of what was around in my time as a child).
Instead I was raised on more lighthearted games and picked up the more violent ones as I got older. And honestly I would go back to playing electronic chinese checkers JUST for the sake of nostalgia.
The arguments that gaming affects a child are true enough, yes, it does affect young children, I've seen some real little terrors sprout up, but I always have to wander "What exactly has this kid been playing or watching that allowed or taught them to act this way?" and just as importantly "Who let this happen?"
The gaming industry is NOT responsible for the worlds children and what they do, THE PARENTS ARE.
Now if a company aims a game toward teaching a child violent or hateful manners, then you can throw extra blame on them if you want but I don't think there's a world conspiracy of game companies out there waiting to corrupt the children of the world by force-feeding them things they shouldn't think of, consider or know about the world earlier than they should.
I could keep going but I'd be saying the same stuff over and over so I think I'll stop there. Now I'm going to go enjoy a nice relaxing game of Chime.
Oh really? Then I will go and lead a healthy life by dropping gaming and smoking 10 packs a day! I'll start right now!
I'm sorry but:
WHAT THE FUCK, AUSTRALIA?
I mean, don't you guys have a way of preventing these 'experts' from voiceing there ignorant opinions?
WHAT THE FUCK, AUSTRALIA?
I mean, don't you guys have a way of preventing these 'experts' from voiceing there ignorant opinions?
I bet that the ACCM Headquarters has a shrine set-up to Jack Thompson. Every morning, in front of the statue, they sacrifice an unblemished lamb in his honor to show their fealty towards his cause.
Any one else here notice that CoD:2 was a WWII game and this guy is an idiot?
Following his logic, and going off the games I've played recently, my brain should be rewired to one armed Russian hunting, Parkour, high/low profile assassination of templar, walking off gun shot wounds, space travel via mass effect relay, thinking that mass effect relays can even work, I am now a military grade sniper/sharpshooter/demolitions/heavy weapons expert.
Hey, don't diss Australia. Diss Michael Atkinson.Hurr Durr Derp said:
OT, I'll just call bullshit and propaganda.
Almost got it there!Stoic raptor said:
What's *really* funny about this is how smoking's connection to lung cancer and the like is consistently written off by the 'correlation does not imply causation.' In short, because you can't ethically put a bunch of people in a room and tell them to smoke for years while another group doesn't to see which group gets more cases of lung cancer, you can't do anything more than say that it 'might' cause lung cancer.
I think this is a nice case of 'open mouth, insert foot' for Atkinson and company. And since he's stepping down anyway, who cares?
I think this is a nice case of 'open mouth, insert foot' for Atkinson and company. And since he's stepping down anyway, who cares?
This is just patently untrue, the hypothesis is flawed. Quite simply, correlation does not imply causation.
For example, the fact that a number of people drink alcohol and are teachers does not mean that drinking alcohol makes you more likely to become a teacher.
For example, the fact that a number of people drink alcohol and are teachers does not mean that drinking alcohol makes you more likely to become a teacher.
I'm slowly starting to think, that maybe all those sinful things that the world is trying to get rid of. Isn't really all that bad, its all just a way to slowly grind the world down and get everyone to become robots who have no desire in partaking in anything fun. I mean sure smoking, drinking, drugs, and games aren't productive or cost effective or even healthy. But dammit, why does it fell like the media is pressing a all or nothing campaign?