Slashdot Mirror
Video Games Share Blame in Florida Murder Case
EH writes "Yet another article making the case that video games force young children to ruthlessly bludgeon people to death. Or at least a South Florida lawyer thinks so. 'Whatever happened [in JoLynn's death], it was not murder,' Thompson wrote in a news release. 'The American video industry must share the blame.' Articles like this make me so angry." I'm really getting sick of video games being used as the scapegoat for the evils of society. It's not like Nintendo is blamed everytime an Italian becomes a plumber.
(Is that the right source? I know I've seen it elsewhere attributed differently.)
he has me convinced ... ahem.
I think that lawyers do a lot more harm than video games ever could. After all, anyone can get away with murder these days because there will always be some souless bastard who will do whatever he/she can to get you off and get themselves more money.
"Wow, murder 1! Even if I loose I'll be famous!"
Before games, it was music, before that movies, before that certian books.
Of course, its also human nature to "pass the buck" or so it seems.
One other thing: I hear a lot about videogames training kids to be killers. Again, not gonna happen. While some videogame skills might transfer over to the real world, most don't. Nobody who plays Quake for 8 hours a day picks up any marksmanship skills at all, any more than playing Tetris prepares you for a job in mail-order packaging. Besides, anyone playing games obsessively will lack the physical fitness necessary in a combat environment. Videogames are for the most part designed to be unrealistic to a degree; apart from hardcore sim-heads, those kinds of games are seen as boring and don't sell. While small amounts of realism make a game fun (think Counterstrike), large amounts simply consist of players doing boring, repetitive things (just like in the real world). Games don't train anyone to be a killer.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
It could never be a possibility that sickos seek out violent games to play because they *gasp* enjoy violence?[/sarcasm]
People kill people. When is this going to get through to society at large. There are messed up people out there that can under no circumstances function normally or reason properly. Some people have skewed psychological problems. This doesn't make it right, but perhaps if the mother had paid some more attention to her son, she would have picked up on these problems. This is a classic case of bad parenting and the parent searching for someone else to place the blame on. I have no doubt in my mind that this poor girl's life could have been saved if this child was on the proper medication or under the right psychiatric care. Some people just can not function in society, this is why there are places for people like this. I'd like to see someone tell me that I'm X times more likely to commit a crime because I played Doom when I was young.
You've got to ask yourself
Personally, I can't imagine ANYONE being influenced to actual violence through games, unless they had some underlying problem in the first place. In that case, surely it would be better to treat the problem, instead of blaming the game. Maybe people are too frightened of discovering the cause, lest it be themselves.
DeeK
In terms of the workings of the legal system, I think that assigning blame to other things is simply the way things work. I am as mad as the next guy that video games is targetted, but the law requires lawyers to defend to their maximum legal ability; and it is the prosecutors' job to make sure there is no doubt in the guilt of the accused. Better this necessary evil, than holding people with no trial..... oh... wait...
Don't blame lawyers... they just use and interpret the law. Contact your lawmakers. They're the ones that make them. And since it's basically impossible to destroy all lawyers once and for all (like ridding humanity of violence), it's better to contact your lawmakers and get things done.
Having said that, though, this defense attorney, a "self-styled expert on the influence of violent video games on youths", sounds like he's using this case for his own self-righteous publicity.
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*beware the cute-bunny virus
I think guys like that lawyer who want to blame one of the only sweetest things in this world (videogames) is a damn moron! I mean c'mon, they looooove to attack the videogames first yeah? WHY DONT WE BLAME SOME DAMN VIOLENT MOVIES FOR A CHANGE???!!! they been around for a much much longer time, and AT TIMES CAN BE 10 TIMES WORSE! This lawyer and the like should all off themselves!
I find it much more likely that Football will make players aggresive than video games. In one you dress up in armor and run at people with the intent to stop them. You can't say that a tackle isn't aggressive.
The other involes you staring intently at a screen and jabbing your fingers up and down. Maybe it's intense, but more like a roller coaster then armed combat... which is what football is designed to immitate.
Down with football! This devils-game is forcing our children to kill!
I want my Cowboyneal
SPAM!
Yes, blame it all on spam. The enticing ads told him to do it!
I think this is a bandwagon everyone can jump on. Now if only we could put the right spin on it!
"It's not like Nintendo is blamed everytime an Italian becomes a plumber."
/. editor worth a damn....
Hahahahaha....CowboyNeal is the only
I'm not that old, and yet I believe I should take responsability for my actions. I cannot stand the way the American society works in this respect.
"It's not my fault I have lung cancer, the tabacco companies should have told me smoking is harmfull"
"It's not my fault I'm a drug addict, the dealer gave me crack for free and didn't tell me it's addictive"
"It's not my fault I killed this person, I saw it all in Doom, I swear!"
And the examples could go on ad infinitum. The fault always lies with someone else. In the worst case, I'm partly to blame, a minute part, and should not be punished for it. This sort of behaviour has deep implications on out lives and freedoms. On one side we have the government and big corporations trying to impose more and more severe limitations on everything we do (think DMCA, Patriot Act, etc) just because they can. On the other we have irresponsible individuals that through their defences are curtailing our freedoms even further by casting an unfavourable light on harmless things (eg. computer games).
And the worst of it all is that nobody is forcing anybody to raise their standards in this respect. As geeks we become enraged in those instances, but do we really do anything about it? Do we have the power to do anything?
You tell me. Please.
Has anyone reading this ever encountered real-life injury or violence after a lifetime of violent video games(*), and *not* been shocked?
Just wondering whether the theories hold up when measured against the experience of real people.
(*) or movies, or news shows, or crime dramas, etc. etc.
I'm really getting sick of video games being used as the scapegoat for the evils of society.
:)
After looking at the case, I'm not convinced that video games could cause such violence. The kid crushed the victim's skull and stabbed her multiple times, it's not like normal violence games has such genre. Even so, violence in games, no matter how real it is, is quite difference from real thing(real blood, intestine split). If one mixed the games elements into the reality he might have some other problem.
Some said the lawyer is doing a good deed trying to save the kid from life-time prison with this excuse, but some said he is making use of this case to fortified his prejudice against violence video games/movies, and at the same time makes himself famous. There's always stories behind story - when there's lawyers involved.
The quote is fun, but not entirely true I think.
;)
With the current state of videogames it's likely to affect people to a certain degree. I'll reveal something embarassing to prove the point. I certainly felt like playing around with a lightsabre after playing Jedi Knight II (ok laughing break...stop now ok?). However it doesn't mean I'll take my gun after playing Quake 3 and just walk up and down the street, shooting anything that moves.
Actually why aren't tv's and movies banned yet? I certainly feel like fighting after seeing Jackie Chan or Jean-Claude van Damme. This is also the whole point of my post, games will not create wacko's. Society does, it might just push someone over a line, which is not very clear with them anyway. This can be done with any media, so blaming games is just not right.
My next game will be playing a lawyer who should try to save as many murderers from punishment. I think it will be rated R
Dre
A link between violence and video games is probably the issue about which geeks are most dogmatic. Nearly all the posts so far in this thread seem to be of the form "Games can't promote violence, because that would just be TOTALLY UNTRUE." There is probably not much evidence for a link, but why refuse to even consider any data? It seems as though people are even more willing to play armchair psychologist than armchair lawyer.
I really only still read these posts because of the hilarious comments "It's not like Nintendo is blamed everytime an Italian becomes a plumber.", had me rolling on the floor. Good one.
Other than that, I think the kid did it. Take him away.
== chicks are for fags ==
There have been always forces of evil trying to destroy anything good* in this country.
* conservative
...is when the terrorists (don't groan, keep reading) attack our nation (I'm from the USA) for being so free and giving our citizens so many rights, and our politicians respond by passing laws taking away our rights (DMCA, TIA, etc) in record-setting fashion. Terrorists win when they scare their targets; they certainly scared our politicians.
Oh, and while I'm ranting: (Disclaimer: personally, I have no problem with the few French-Americans I've met) Did you know that France is the most policed nation? They have more internal spies and cops than any other nation and keep volumes of data on their citizens. So with all the recent political hatred of the French, what are we doing? Modelling our nation after theirs. Now I know you're supposed to "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", but since when are you supposed to try to turn yourself into those you despise?
Kurdt
I'm not anti-social. Just pro-technology.
We know that in times past, gladiator sports were popular. We often look back on the idea of men fighting to the death as a bad thing, and find it abhorrent that people could stand by and watch. Same with executions in the middle ages.
Yet these computer games, we do exactly the same thing. Imagine 100 years from now if violence was removed from games. People will look back on the mindless violence we participate in in a similar way to how we perceive those who enjoyed gladiator sports.
Now you and I would argue that computer games don't accurately represent reality (but we're getting close), but more importantly we don't actually watch someone die - we just imagine it.
I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence. In small or large doses. Most here have probably participated in fights with friends - wrestling, etc, in a show of strength. To me, I think that violence is an innate part of our nature - whether we participate in reality or in computer games.
I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it. One can release their frustration in a less harmful manner through computer games. Without computer games, a person fosters thoughts of violence in their mind with no outlet.
Just a thought.
Its like that everywhere.
In fact, in Germany you can't find some games in the stores, but you have to know to ask for them (and be over 18)
Oh really? <sarcasm>What the hell was it then? A frag?</sarcasm>
Just because I played Super Mario x doesn't mean I go around jumping on other peoples pet turtles!
<soapbox>Murder is murder is murder. Unless you can honestly claim he was acting in self defense ("She was gonna get me with her BFG..."), then he committed murder and should be sentenced as such. Period. And IMHO, this lawyer should be struck off for trying to trivialise the actions of this person by insisting that videogames are to blame</soapbox>
Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it...
In Germany they do that with everything, not only video games, this way they are trying to expose their youth (And the big difference is that they do not blame the game industry for their violence of the youth, rather the way they raise them and the idols that they look up to.
I know I've already posted a comment on this story, but I just remembered something that's quite pertinant.
Remember Marilyn Mansons' essay about the blame he was being landed with over the Columbine incident? The last paragraph says everything...
I know he's a bit of a dickhead at times, but he does make a very good point. (And yes, I do realise this case has nothing to do with guns...)
Life is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put into it...
I think the thing that shocked me is that the victim's father wanted the murder to get a lighter sentence! "Gee, it wasn't poor little Dustin who brutally slaughtered my daughter by stabbing her multiple times. It was the video games."
What the hell kind of parent is that?
I think everyone who can *THINK* knows that video games are not to blame. I've seen video games (including FPS') in a psychatry. So the author of that related article doesn't know a shit. Probably a stupid father who had word from his stupid neighbors who were unable to install Half-Life or Doom3 and got so frustrated. Ah.. this is so stupid. I didn't even care to read that fuckin' article. All those people deserve cancer before they get old.
He noted at some point that videogames moved fast in their evolution of control systems, then he said something like videogames cause violence in "real life". -Nothing to special here is there...
He then said that "If there weren't computer games there wouldn't be child pornography".
I was as stunned as you probably are now. =0
Haven't we done this before? It remains a tragedy that this highly-litigious mentality we live under (here in the U.S.) convinces us that we are not responsible for anything that happens to us, that is always somebody else's fault. This suit is a farce and a travesty; with any luck at all, it will be thrown out of court... but not likely.
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I did a quick research on Google and found this paper on The Effect of Violent Internet Games on Children and Juveniles by Karen Olivier, Institute for Criminological Sciences, University of South Africa. It's a short-and-sweet read. It concludes that education and familial responsibility are the best defenses against this influence.
There are two different approaches to the Violence begets Violence argument, whether the violence is real or simulated:
1) Test the hypothesis that violent people tend to gravitate towards violent activities, simulated or real, and
2) Regardless of how much influence feeds a person's violent tendencies, they must still be held responsible for acting on those tendencies, since coercion is not force.
I wonder what video games Hitler played to become
so evil.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
loose
Pronunciation Key (ls)
adj. looser, loosest
1. Not fastened, restrained, or contained: loose bricks.
2. Not taut, fixed, or rigid: a loose anchor line; a loose chair leg.
3. Free from confinement or imprisonment; unfettered: criminals loose in the neighborhood; dogs that are loose on the streets.
lose
Pronunciation Key (lz)
v. lost, (lôst, lst) losing, loses
v. tr.
1. To be unsuccessful in retaining possession of; mislay: He's always losing his car keys.
2.
1. To be deprived of (something one has had): lost her art collection in the fire; lost her job.
2. To be left alone or desolate because of the death of: lost his wife.
3. To be unable to keep alive: a doctor who has lost very few patients.
3. To be unable to keep control or allegiance of: lost his temper at the meeting; is losing supporters by changing his mind.
4. To fail to win; fail in: lost the game; lost the court case.
Why is it everytime good news about video games comes out the /. community thinks its just swell but when negative affects are proven everyone comes out with the "well I came out ok"?
I know...a bit of a rhetorical question. Everyone is defensive of THEIR hobby and are secretly afraid they have been screwed up somehow. Come on, how much intelligence does it take to see that seeing very graphic, violent behavior day after day would desensitize you to that behavior? Yes, these types of lawsuits are crazy but parents should take the prevailing research and attitudes to heart and pay attention to what their kids are playing.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
If gay video games caused normal people to turn gay I'd see a pattern here but there isn't.
People with violent propensities play violent video games because they like the violence in the first place. Wether they would act out in real life is irrelevant.
The ones that are allowed to play excessively (16 hours a day) are unstable and their parents should be blamed for not giving them a balanced life. They are the ones that didn't properly educate their kids so they should be blamed.
The gaming industry has been making more and more money so you can expect some people to try to get their killed son back with a few million dollars law suit. I don't find that very ethical or intelligent. Their son isn't worth a million dollars.
On another hand I think there should be less violent games. I dislike blood and gore in a game. I prefer when a game is fun, clean and makes people think (Jewels of the Oracle anyone?)
You all say, of course, that video games are not causing people to murder folks, and it's true that the video-game blamers are a shrill bunch.
But have any of you stopped to wonder why it is that video games are often so violent?
Sure, tension is a good element to a storyline or scene, and games fall along those lines like a short comic book or a single action sequence in a movie, but the majority of videogames involve beating, maiming, and killing (from cartoony to graphicaly unpleasant) as their main activity in an endless way. Is this the nature of the medium, or is there a choice being made here (perhaps without considering it.)
Also, how about the drift from cartoony cute conflict towards the GHOUL engine from Raven Software where you can shoot off people's arms and have them realistically bleed and/or fail to function (which game is this again?) Sure, increasing graphics capability and sophisticated programming makes this possible, but doesn't it make nearly infinitely many other things possible as well?
I guess what I'm saying is the video-game blamers are often ill-considered and poorly reasoned, but they're not inventing this stuff from whole cloth, and it might be something that could actually be improved for the good of the game industry and the gamers both, nevermind the sideline nannypants whingers.
-josh
They're not anywhere near as interactive.
Sitting in a theatre watching violent events take place on a screen is quite different than picking up a controller and commanding your on-screen persona to pick up a baseball bat and bludgeon a pedestrian to death in Grand Theft Auto. Hell, in most cases, you even get rewarded with cash in the game for doing this.
Sure, the downside to that is that the police start to chase you, but you have to kill more than a couple people first and yet still only have to drive a few blocks away for your warning level to dissapear - hence, no punishment.
You really should be on one side of this argument or the other. Saying "don't blame games, blame movies/music/etc." is a tad bit hypocritical.
P.S. If you honestly think of videogames as "one of the only sweetest things in this world", you might need to check your priorities. They are actually nothing more than a distraction from your real life.
...the defense is grasping for straws.
The defendant's dad "is sure that game" had something to do with it.
At the same time, this kid was "afraid to go home", hence why he slept on the victims floor. Afraid to go home to the same parents who are now trying to shunt the blame away from them.
Sounds like a great family, eh?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I'm sure many so-called conservatives will love the whole "video game violence" drove him to do it thing. However, they should think about something. This defense is being used to try to get this murderer a lighter sentence. It isn't a civil case against the video game manufacturers as so many in the past were.
This is an attempt to make sure that video games are used as an excuse to get this murderer back on the streets sooner. He stabbed and bludgeoned a young girl to death, I don't know why he isn't up for the death penalty (it is Florida, after all, famous for giving people the chair) but I do not want him back on the streets.
So, by all means, support anti-videogame legislation or civil lawsuits to your heart's content. But remember, this thug isn't going to be magically cured of his violent tendencies just because his defense lawyer wins on the "GTA made me do it" defense. He's still going to be a particularly sadistic murderer. He should never be let out of prison for any reason at all.
Even if you believe that video games made him do it, why would you want him back on the streets? I mean if his psyche was so damaged by Final Fantasy X, how would he be cured by simple recognition of this? I remember "Son of Sam," claimed to have been influenced by his neighbor's talking, satanic dog, would you want him freed too?
They aren't talking about putting him in a lunatic asylum, after all. They are saying he'll be rehabilitated after a few years in juvenal prison. Does any person believe that? I don't, I think he'll commit rapes, murders and other brutal crimes after his short time in America's juvenal prison system.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Germans are infamous for concealing things from plain view.
Because in RL, you'll never get to see that. The closest you'll get to it is the whatever the prop department of CSI trundles out.
Games have to give you something that you don't see everyday, or give you the chance to be something that you're not. That's why computer adaptation of board games suck (unless you're playing online... see there it is!)
Usually this involves being strong enough to maim someone with your bare hands, or the ability to run real fast away from an explosion. I mean, how cool is that! New technology makes this false reality easier to implement. Before, you had to do with cartoons... not anymore/
It could also be that game designers are uninspired and so the easy way to make a game fun is to add cheesecake, and unfortunately, the Right (and the Left too) won't allow sex, so violence it is. How insipid.
And in any case, plenty of kids like games that aren't violent too... chess, card games, DDR, sports and racing simulators...
That being said, I like Quake III and Breakout clones.
Draw your own conclusions.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I will happily acknowledge that some people can be driven over the edge by stimuli--Ted Bundy's claims that the availability of/his addiction to porn was a major factor in his crimes, etc. However, I know from experience (having worked as a bouncer in college) that despite playing loads of violent video games, I still was very sensitive to real-life violence--I don't like it, I have never liked it, and yet I can play Postal II and laugh my ass off.
I'm not saying everyone's like me, either. But you have three basic choices:
If you pick #1 or #3, where do you draw the line? With violent games? With porn? With violent movies? How violent? How about violent music?
Slippery slope potential.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
The murder took place in Medina county in Ohio, which is actually fairly close to where I live. The sensationalist lawyer blaiming the video game industry is from Florida.
SiO2
Google ["Jack Thompson" miami] -
this is the same lawyer that was trying to blame society's woes on 2 Live Crew in the 80's, Howard Stern and Ice-T in the 90's... guess now it's video games that are the root of all evil.
let this be a lesson to those of us who value our freedom to think for ourselves: we can't afford to let the freedoms of others slide, we need to find common cause every time anyone's tastes are threatened by the fascists.
once you're done reading up on jack, try googling this phrase: "First they came for the Communists;"
then join the american civil liberties union.
have a nice day.
disponibile
Just occurred to me... The US Military is using video games to train troops now right? And the games are being released to the public. Well can't we hold the US Government responsible as well? What if there is another Columbine and America's Army(thats the military made one right?) is found in the kids bedroom?
As a side note... What is preventing Al-Quede from purchasing an XBox and these "training" games? Wonder if they have a position on that issue.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
...is when the terrorists (don't groan, keep reading) attack our nation (I'm from the USA) for being so free and giving our citizens so many rights
Stop spewing propaganda. The terrorist bombed you because you bombed them first.
When your whole family is killed by a bomb and the shrapnell has "Made in U.S.A" written all over it, you tend to get a little bit, lets say, annoyed at the country in question.
you know that France is the most policed nation?
Well, I dunno about "most", but I know its pretty policed awright. Of course, they have been dealing with terrorist since long before september 2001.
You can't take the sky from me...
I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence.
Shut up, you sexist twit.
Women are no less capable of enjoying violence as men.
I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it.
Well, that's true. Its called catharsis.
You can't take the sky from me...
Come on, how much intelligence does it take to see that seeing very graphic, violent behavior day after day would desensitize you to that behavior?
Very little.
In fact, its mostly retards who think like that.
You can't take the sky from me...
There's an endless number of "love songs" on the radio these
days, as there has been for countless decades. It's been the
overriding theme in popular music. Yet, I don't see everyone
falling in love with each other.
BTW, we all caught it, but we also knew what he meant.
Mom says my
Haven't you read about the studies that link comic book reading to a startling spike in vigilantism?
How about rock and roll music leading to a decay in the moral fiber of our great nation (take our pick)?
There's also the surge in demonic cultic behavior that's been linked to those card collecting games that have unholy imagery!
I've also heard rumours of certain goodwifes practicing native medicines, which is clearly consorting with unrighteous forces, and leading our youth astray.
No, wait. It's just an alarming increase in negligent parenting.
The simple question, your honor, is that if we are to squarely and assuredly indict videogames for their part in this grusome tradegy, have we proven that every video gamer has bludgeoned someone to death? No? Perhaps there are a few abbarents who manage not to bludgeon people to death. What are the odds?
What's that, you say? Of the videogaming population, those that engage in violent acts are as abbarent as those from a nonvideogaming population?
After reading the story, and taking into account that this kid probably had severe emotional problems, it sounds more like he got shot down by the girl and just sorta snapped. if this is the case, then his school mates are probably as much at fault as video games.
This message was brought to you by the death of 30 brain cells.
Ahh, but will women act violently if no place is found to vent?
In my experiance, lashing out in physical violence is more a male attribute. It's just the nature of testosterone, which men have more off. There have been studies...
My fiance and I watch Jackie Chan all the time. She introduced me to many kung foo movies. We cool off when watching these movies, so we both feel emotionally relived.
We both feel the burn, but due to chemical differances, mens equivilent emotional distress is amplified on the physical relm. The symptoms are more dramatic and dangerous. A dumb/weak/sick man is more likely to be comfortable with outbursts as an appropriate way to relieve stress. Simply because they come natural and that man is to dumb/weak/sick to chalange it. He may have even been more rewarded than a woman would be because he is bigger, stronger, scarrier looking. It requires less skill from a man for an outburst to have a reward.
I don't know that his statement was sexist. Incomplete, perhaps, but not overtly offensive.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I am sure that there will be a lawsuit to follow if the defense is successful.
The thought that this girl's father might be willing to unleash this kid on someone else in order to open the door to benefitting from litigation is what sickens me the most. Four years, indeed. It may be that this critter can be rehabilitated, but the adult legal system is better equipped to deal with him than the juvenile system, if only because they can keep him long enough to treat and retrain him.
An interesting parallel to the whole video game/violence argument is to consider the older comic book/violence argument. This link is an interesting read: http://www.psu.edu/dept/inart10_110/inart10/cmbk4c ca.html
And here's a good quote from the article:
"Badly drawn, badly written, and badly printed - a strain on the young eyes and young nervous systems - the effects of these pulp-paper nightmares is that of a violent stimulant. Their crude blacks and reds spoils a child's natural sense of colour; their hypodermic injection of sex and murder make the child impatient with better, though quieter, stories. Unless we want a coming generation even more ferocious than the present one, parents and teachers throughout America must band together to break the `comic' magazine."
What's truly sad is that as a culture we have not grown past this idiotic tendency to pass the buck. Surely the next generation will look back on our current fear and loathing of video games with the same bemused confusion that we now have for the last generations fear and loathing of comic books.
(You might want to make sure your pop-up blocker is working before clicking...)
Are you a Red Dupe?
Oh, and this may inspire donations to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
He may have even been more rewarded than a woman would be because he is bigger, stronger, scarrier looking. It requires less skill from a man for an outburst to have a reward.
Yes, therein lies the difference.
Men and women, being both the results of billions of years of survival of the fittest, are equally prone to violence. Violence being how most things are settled in nature (even the slow violence of trees hogging the sunlight).
But, men are bigger and stronger, and so, in a fight, will win.
Most women know they can't take a guy in a fight, and so don't often bother trying. Guys, however, know they can, and so don't need to repress their violence as much.
I don't dispute the facts, more men act violently then women. But its not because men are, in their core being, more violent. It is because men are more capable of violence.
If women were bigger then men, they would be the more violent ones, and if we were all the same size, we would be equally violent (or perhaps, less so, since overpowering someone is an important aspect of violence).
You can't take the sky from me...
First They Take Vice City, Then They Take Berlin: Video Game Legislation Offers Hard Lessons For Comic Books
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Who can I sue for encouraging idiots like this Jack Thompson to become a Lawyer?
It's not actually a florida case, the lawyer's just from there. The case is actually taking place in Medina, Ohio. The same county I live in. Goddamn hicks blaming everything on the spooky box in the living room.
I think you are working out your answers backwards. You are saying, that because women and men have both been involved in billions of years of evolution and natural selection that they both must have a propensity to violence of a roughly equal value - but physical circumstances cause them to act differently. However, I would dare say you have no evidence of this.
I would bet that if we could devise an adequate study (eg, take a group of women who are as strong as a group of men for a few years and observe their reactions) then we would find men would act violently more than women.
Besides, your example doesn't help since I don't actually believe in evolution. That is why I think you act without evidence. You are working from a flawed position and making a hypothesis. The facts are that men act more violently - your suggestion is that this is because of men's natural strength causes them to act on it more than women.
I don't know...just doesn't sound like there's any proof of your assertion. And as the parent poster said, it's related to testosterone. There, that would be a good test - give some women more testosterone (if they are willing) and see if they act more violently. I'm quite confident that your hypothesis would be proven incorrect.
I don't actually believe in evolution
I'll take that as proof that you're a moron.
You can't take the sky from me...
I always like how when this "sort of thing" happens, the parents are never to blame.
My folks raised me well. They taught me the difference between right, and wrong. When I see someone walking down the sidewalk, I don't try to run them down as I do in Vice City, because I know better.
I don't think video games have any influence on kids. I think it's the parents. I've been playing video games since I was four. I'm not a violent person. Sure, I can think violent thoughts, but I don't act on violent thoughts. There's a difference, and I credit my parents with showing me that difference. Now, we have no idea if the parents of this kid read him bedtime stories or coached his little league team, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say they probably didn't. I doubt he grew up in a loving, caring home. I could be wrong, but I think it's a good guess based one what the article says: "Mickey Mishne said his daughter (the Fragged) had invited Lynch (the Fragger) to stay at their home because she felt sorry for him." She felt sorry for him, why? There's no reason given in the article, but one must wonder. That's a DateLine Special with Stone Phillips that I'd watch.
But even if you don't agree with the Bad-Parent Defense, what about the He's-Fucking-16-Years-Old-and-Should-Know-Better-T han-to-Frag-the-Neighbor-Girl Defense?
What's that bumper sticker say? Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People. Hey CopyLeft, here's one for ya: Video Games Don't Crush People's Neighbor's Skulls In, People Do. There ya go, and I give up any and all rights to that quote. Please just send me a free sticker.
You can take it as proof of whatever you want. It won't change facts.
My opinion of you instantly dropped to below 0, since you are unable to comprehend that something you believe may be wrong, and as a result you blame me for your own failings.
... of the uneducated in a position of power. Things like this piss me off as well. Just because you're a judge doesn't mean you're an expert on everything.
I'll admit that violent video games may indeed effect children/people in some way, there still has to be some psychological intent on behalf of the guilty. Whether subconscious or not, the underlying 'drive' to commit violence is present in the mind long before.
I'm over 30 years old. My friends and I grew up watching The Road Runner (most violent cartoon for it's time) and playing video games. We've followed the evolution of the games and played most of them (violent ones included).
We have not turned into emotionless, amoral killing machines. Mainly because we are smart enough to realize the difference btw fantasy and the real world. If it is true that children 10 yrs old and higher aren't able to make this distinction, then not have the parents failed in raising this child but society has failed as well.
If ignorance of the law or being drunk cannot be used as a defence, why is being under the influence of a video game accepted so readily?
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
"This afternoon, officers were engaged in a three hour stand-off with an armed suspect as he held a Golden Retriever hostage. He was reported to be screaming "Giggle at me NOW, b$#&@!" The suspect was apprehended without further incident after being distracted by a flock of Canadian geese flying overhead."
The truth is that exposure to lawyers make people want to bludgeon someone... Generally the laywer.
My other Slashdot ID is much lower.
That's gotta be the most politically incorrect thing I've ever seen posted on the front page of /.
Frigging hillarious...
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
Before rock music, it was comic books.
Before comic books, it was the Beatles.
Before the Beatles, it was Chuck Berry.
Before that, well, was World War 2 and the Baby Boomers, and the number of young with disposable income was low, and therefore if they weren't well-off already they were working (boys) or pregnant (girls) and both married before 20ish. (Yes, this is semi U.S. centric. If anyone has information about youth having disposable income AND free time before that elsewhere it would be good to know.)
I chose what I listed the most likely to be recognized as a pattern, but the list is longer. All activities that don't directly support the power structure are blamed for their problems: casual sex, drug use, alternative lifestyles, indifference to their god, compassion - even interest - in other cultures, etc.
Of course, we can go further back, if you want. Prohibition was a reaction to the new freedom of the times after the first World War, but the crash of 1929 was much more effective at ending the party, until the above pattern. And those were mainly adults with free time; children weren't yet given money or free time.
For what it's worth, history does repeat itself:
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.
Socrates (470-399 B.C)
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
I challenge you to find, in the history of mankind, one murder that involved the criminal dropping an anvil on the victim's head. I think I was about 15 years old before I learned that an anvil had a purpose other than for dropping on an unsuspecting road runner. The Road Runner and Coyote cartoons feature extreme violence, yet even the most deranged killers have never attempted to kill someone by dropping an anvil on their victim's head. So don't waste your time looking on Google. I've searched on anvil and murder. It's never happened. Why? Because it happened in a cartoon. It's not real. And just because someone plays a gun wielding maniac in a video game doesn't make him one in real life. The kid in this article was screwed up long before he ever touched a joystick. Enough about this, I am too busy waiting for a package from ACME.
You can take it as proof of whatever you want. It won't change facts.
Facts?
My opinion of you instantly dropped to below 0, since you are unable to comprehend that something you believe may be wrong, and as a result you blame me for your own failings.
Hehe, the moron strikes again.
Listen, bub, evolution is not a matter of belief, unlike Shiva or the holy trinity. Its a scientific fact, and if you refuse proven principles, I reserve the right to call you a moron, and to disregard your opinions.
Now, there are things I believe that might be wrong, like I believe that sept11 was a ploy by elements inside the US government to help them accomplish their dark agendas. I might be wrong on that, maybe it really was Al Quaeda, but I have no proof either way (and no, the fact that one of the suspects says its got secret proof that the other did it is not proof). As for evolution, I have proof, lots of proof, and those proofs are freely available to anyone, including you, and if you reject them without cause, then you are, in fact a moron.
Sure, its name calling, its a bit immature, but you can only argue with irrational creationist for so long before you realise how moronic their arguments are, and the name calling is just a byproduct of that.
You can't take the sky from me...
I don't care about your good motives, you have no right to call me a moron. There are very few who can actually argue with me and win. I think through things. And I have thought about creationism a great deal.
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism. And considering that track record, I work from the assumption that you are no different. And for you to call me a moron is, in my eyes, setting yourself up for very deep embarrasment if you should ever hear creationism presented in a way you can understand.
I don't know who you've argued with, but they sure couldn't have been presenting an accurate description of the creation model - either that, or you are slow of learning and find difficulty understanding new concepts.
I'm only guessing here - but imagine if I blamed evolutionists for a moronic theory when I'd only ever argued about it with those who said that, for example, a monkey if it loses it's tail in a fight will have children with no tails.
you have no right to call me a moron
Jeez that really got to you...ok listen, I was just trolling you, I don't know you, so I take it back, you're not a moron. Now breathe deep, if you get this worked up everytime you get trolled you'll get a heart attack soon.
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism
What's to understand? Magic being said "let there be life" and *poof!*, life! Ooooo! Magic!
Creationists do not understand evolution. Hell, even a lot of "evolutionists" as you call them don't understand evolution.
Its a complex thing, after all.
the creation model
There is no creation model, there are just creations myths. A whole bunch of 'em, and they tend to contradict themselves pretty bad.
So, did Yavhe create life or was it Brahma? Or maybbe life was created when Chronos chopped the sky's privates off?
Sneezed out of the giant space goat maybe?
I'm only guessing here - but imagine if I blamed evolutionists for a moronic theory when I'd only ever argued about it with those who said that, for example, a monkey if it loses it's tail in a fight will have children with no tails.
Hey, even Lamarck would have said that the monkey would only have had a shorter tail...
You can't take the sky from me...
You think you are actually being pursuasive in your post? You like every other ignorant evolutionist claim that we appeal to magic, and there is nothing more to our theories. Are you really that simple that you think we hold on to spells and fairy tales? There are many scientists with Ph.D's who believe the creation model (yes, model, not myth - a model may be right or wrong, it has nothing to do with myths). In order to obtain those Ph.D's they had to think.
Now you call me a moron, now you take it back because you think I'm exasperated. Now take it from my perspective. 90% of the time I encounter an evolutionist, I have to deal with insults like moron, magic, fairy tales, spells, blah blah blah. And not a single one of them understands. And then they have the absolute stupidity, like yourself, to say "what's to understand?".
You probably consider yourself fair minded, but not from where I stand. I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense - but I at least make the effort to understand why so many people believe it. You owe me the same courtesy, if you have any care for how you look. Or are you just interested in scoring browny points in front of other slashdotters, because it's cool to insult a creationist, then "take it back" when they react as if you are somehow better than them?
I've dealt with people like you before. I don't need your sympathy, or your words of "Jeez that really got to you" - you obviously haven't changed your mind about anything. As the proverbs say,
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline. " - Proverbs 1:7
That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom. You come here mocking me without evidence, patronising me again in this post, and show your unconditional bias with tales of magic. If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen. I'm betting you have absolutely no idea what would be a challenge to evolution, what is expected by it - or what creationism expects or what would cause it to be rejected.
Seriously - I want to know how you perceive yourself. When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me. You really don't understand how much frustration I have had to put up with when ignorant evolutionists just can't grasp the concepts of creationism. It's not that it's irrational, it's just that their minds are so locked in their ways they can't consider something new. And so when you come along with fresh insults, it carries with it the weight of all those others who have gone before you, whose footsteps you walk in. And I'm sure, like every single one (no exceptions yet), you misunderstand even the basic principles of the creationist model. And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.
When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me.
Yes, towards you.
I do feel arrogance, because you're so...emotionally involved with this whole thing. And you talk about logic, but do not demonstrate any logic. I'm still waiting for your actual views, all you give me is your feelings about your views. Stop telling me how much people not sharing your views hurt your feelings and show me your wonderfull creationist insights already.
I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense
Define "evolution".
You obviously have some kind of special meaning for the word, why not clear it up?
Here's the relevant part of the definition given by Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"
I've studied biology, we had classes that compared organs of primitive life forms with the more advanced corresponding organs of superior life forms. The whole thing was very convincing. Now its your turn.
That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom.
Well, you're very, very wrong. Wisdom is my friend.
If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen.
Notice how you've not even tried to explain your view? You just claim its logical and well thought out, but you don't actually explain or demonstrate anything...yet.
And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.
Well, I've read many creation myths, heard others. Calling those stories "models" instead of "myths" doesn't change them, its just meant to make them sound more respectable. I'm not impressed by name calling, unlike say, you. You call me arrogant, you call me ignorant, a fool, and I don't really mind. Go on, tell me your creationist "model".
I can tell from your bible quote that you work within the Judeo-Christian model, so I don't expect Vishnu to play a significant role in it...I'm still a bit curious though. So, please, if you will, tell me about your "creation of life Model".
Keep in mind though, that while I'll refrain from childish name calling, I will be critical of your views if they are flawed.
You can't take the sky from me...