Slashdot Mirror
Violent Video Games Only Affect Some People
An anonymous reader writes "The media would have you believe that violent video games will be the downfall of our civilization and the cause of moral decline in young people. A recent study suggests that most people aren't so easily influenced by the violence; instead, just a few bad apples are likely to react poorly, with everyone else showing little or no effect from playing these games."
The American Psychological Association has posted the academic paper (PDF) as well, in addition to a few related studies. One examines how games can be a force for good (PDF), and another looks at the motivations behind children playing such games (PDF).
I'm German, you insensitive clod!
Bemusing really, isn't it. To objectify the taking of life is commonplace in cinema and literature, but its creation is taboo.
Someone bring back common sense.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
That is such a heap of bullshit, I've killed plenty of small animals and I'm definitely a well adjusted individual. Take back your fucking retarded comment or I'm gonna come over there, rip your spine out and use it to literally beat you shit out of you, then make you eat it, then beat it out again and make you eat the shit made out of the shit you already had beat out of you. You have 20 seconds to comply.
which is totally what she said
All handguns are banned in the UK because someone went on a killing spree with it.
AND the last one has worked because nobody has used a handgun since to go on a killing spree. The next one used a shotgun. The one before the handgun used an automatic rifle which have also been banned and since then nobody has used one either.
Hard to argue that it doesn't work, when it does.
Actually I'd argue that what you described shows that banning guns doesn't work. One guy used an automatic rifle, so they banned it. The next guy used a handgun, so they banned that. The next guy used a shotgun, so they banned that. What's next a guy using a butcher's cleaver so they ban that?
You can always find a way to cause physical harm against another person ranging from string, table legs, anvils to guns. Should we ban all those when a single person miss uses them? Washington DC has one of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and one of the highest crime rates (not counting political crimes, which would really skew the numbers). I'd say at least in the US, banning things when a very small subset of people miss use them doesn't work. If you want a historical example, look at prohibition which caused more harm then good to the country.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
You have 20 seconds to comply.
Congratulations Slashdot. Your 'slow down cowboy' message just killed the grandparent.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Even wars that are fought in the name of religion are usually fought in reality for land, money, power, and revenge. Just like all the other wars.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
>Agreed. I don't think either topic in general reaches the level of 'taboo'. That said, claiming that 'creating life' is the taboo subject ignores both that the content we're talking about is casual sex that doesn't result in reproduction, and that the intent is to limit childrens access to the content (since it's undesirable physiologically and financially for 14 year olds to be pregnant).
Talk about intent failing due to ignorance then... study after study have proven that the younger teenagers (And this is doubly true of girls) start masturbating the OLDER they tend to lose their virginity. Girls who own vibrators and (are encouraged by their parents to) watch porn tend to wait even LONGER.
Simple really - if you know how to deal with your OWN hormones, you don't HAVE to rely on boys to do it for you... and then you can actually choose who you have sex with on more than just "I'm horny right now and I can't control the need" because you've previously learned how to deal with that need on your own, it's not so overwhelming to be near orgasm when you've been past it a few thousand times already.
In short... basically it seems to have the OPPOSITE affect. Honest sex-ed that admits sex is fun, often engaged in for that purpose and can be almost as MUCH fun by yourself is known to reduce pregnancy and STD rates, denial and "condoms break" and "never ever tell the poor mite she has a clitoris" is known to lead to MASSIVE spikes in pregnancy and STD rates...
Of course adding insult to injury for the moral brigade... during the Bush years' insistence on repeating the old abstinence-only sex-ed model (despite it's persistent faillure in the past) it was found by one study that more than 70% of the teenagers who abstained from penetrative sex as a result of those programs practised both oral and anal sex on a regular basis, usually without protection.
"I'm saving myself for marriage, fuck me in the ass instead"...
What can I say, I guess the moral brigade has an easy task - they want to stop teenagers from having sex, well that shouldn't be so hard. it's not like teenagers are horny after all... oh wait... remember what it was LIKE to have puberty's hormone levels ?
Best thing we can do is give teenagers information, and ACCESS TO RELIEF WITHOUT GUILT... and then let them make their own informed choices.
How many more times must society SEE how every other approach fails disastrously before we figure this out ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *