Slashdot Mirror
If Video Games Make People Violent, So Do Pictures of Snakes
New submitter phenopticon writes with this nugget from an intriguing piece at Gamasutra that adds another voice to the slow-burn debate on the psychological effects of video games: "For nearly thirty years we've been having this discussion, asking the question: do violent movies, music or video games make people violent? Well according to Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson of Iowa State University, yes. Based on the results of their research they concluded in 2001 that video games and violent media can make people aggressive and violent. Based upon their data and their conclusions, however, it's safe to say that photos of snakes, crispy bacon, or a particularly rigorous game of chess can also make people aggressive and violent."
Obligatory: "Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherf**king snakes on this motherf**king plane!"
Video Game Developer Defends Video Games, News at Eleven.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I fucking hate it when my bacon's burnt.
is what makes me violent!
I'd get mad too if someone wasted good bacon by burning it. Hate crispy bacon.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
While I don't think playing video games makes the individual violent, I'm curious to see the presence of violence in groups; and to an extent, how it affects or shapes the culture's view of violence. Do we become desensitized or do we accept certain forms of violence to be entertainment (ex.: arantino movies). And from there, does the culture make the individual violent?
Anyways, I have a feeling that violence in media is much more complicated than a cause/ effect test in a lab for a few weeks. We've tried the simple approach before and there's no consensus.
I checked the original article. It doesn't support the claims about bacon. I guess it's still safe to eat breakfast. At least, safe for my family and friends. Maybe not so safe for my heart.
Is nothing but a regicide simulator.
Back in the 1930s I guess it was talkies, so they brought in the Hayes Code.
Whatever is the "new" media" is assumed to be evil and corrupting.
It might be, but you do have to prove it.
90% of all violent perpetrators ate carbohydrates the day before their killing spree. And 95% of all violent perpetrators consume caffeine at least once per week. 99% have been moving on public roads recently.
That explains why I would scatter the pieces around the room when I lost at chess
back when I was still in single digits.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Makes sense... show me a picture of some crispy bacon playing chess and the rampage is on.
"If Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
(Kristian Wilson - Creator of Pac-Man - 1989)
[I know this quote is a comedina joke and not an original one, but whatever it expresses exactly my tougths on the subject.]
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
socialists, progressives, globalists, nanny staters, multi-cultis, etc. are what make me violent. I don't view any of the aforementioned people as human but rather trash. I feel worse smashing a fly than I would a progressive control freak and I feel nothing when I crush a fly.
For impressionable minds, GIGO applies, Garbage In, Garbage Out. To have a a young mind exposed to images of violence and expect that they aren't influenced by it would be a ridiculous arguement, imo.
The fact that we're still arguing about this is kinda depressing. I admit that there are some violent, awful games, but I personally could state a list of incredibly good games, games which carry a more powerful message than a lot of books or film, and simply could not achieve that without being at least a little violent and visceral.
This article does bring up the interesting point, that violent media has equal potential to make people violent, no matter what form of media it is (the 2-minutes hate from 1984 springs to mind)
But that said, the debate is still ridiculous because Video Games fall under free speech, and therefore should not be banned, whatever their content, just like we treat books, movies, and tv.
-1 Comment Contains Portal Reference
The article is a far more interesting read than the misleading headline and summary. A lot of it focuses on the idea that the "... discussion should not focus upon violent video games or violent visual media, it should focus on risk factors that might cause media to affect different people in different ways."
Unfortunately the social sciences are incredibly complex. There are a multitude of variables that are incredibly difficult to control, and any effort to control those variables would be shot down by ethics or create a significant bias in the experimental sample.
While things such as the physiological response of game players is interesting, I would be far more interested in learning about the long term impact on attitudes and behaviours. Alas, the studies that I have seen in the media have not really addressed those issues. As such they tend to be divisive among the general public, who tend to interpret the results on way or another based upon their personal beliefs.
I would also be interested in seeing meaningful longitudinal studies. Yet those have major issues because of the dynamics of technology and society. Even the most graphic violence of video games in the 1980s would border on the implicit violence of modern video games. Part of that relates to the inherent graphical and storage space limitations of the past (restricted storage space limited the ability to tell a story). Part of that relates to the more mature subjects of modern games as the demographic has expanded from children to adults.
Picture this: having to pay your taxes! It makes me SO DMN AGGRESSIVE..
So: it's safe to conclude taxes are bad.
Privacy is terrorism.
is Classical music.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
...not any more than anything else. And you know, people have been violent since LONG before current pop culture has and for some reason, I think the violence was actually WORSE than it is today... or perhaps simply more sanitary and remote.
And threaten the People with violence if they have those things.
To reduce violence.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Video games, or pictures of snakes is not what the debate is about. Its about gun control. Since there are so many people all gung-ho to trample on the rights of others, people like the NRA are doing to you what you do to them. They are blaming what you like to distract from you taking away what they like, the only difference is they have a constitutional amendment protecting them. Since so many are DEMANDING something gets done, ask yourself what is easier for Congress to accomplish: Banning constitutionally protected right to own gus, or trying to destroy video games. You may think video games is a first amendment thing, but we have been adding more and more exceptions to the first amendment lately and I'm not sure you will be able to argue first amendment protections when someone shows it can harm people but still demand the second amendment be trampled on for the reason that it can harm people.
Its kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction, but with rights instead of nukes. I'm aware of many Supreme Court rulings protecting the second amendment, but I don't know of many protecting video games under the first. Until people turn on the government intrusion instead of the NRA, video games will be under constant attack no matter what research or statements people make.
Go back and do some research and try not to post off topic bullshit to forward your own irrational political ideology. Which is not even based in a firm understanding of morality or ethics. Your fear is irrational. Stop letting it control your thoughts. There are not a million billion crazed gun nuts seeking to kill you. Note that I state its irrational. Not illogical.
Before we laud modern entertainment for how violent it is, lets remember what was considered normal entertainment in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_baiting
Straight out of his cargo cult science (Look that one up if you don't recognize it - yer educashun ain't complete yet.)
My question has always been -- so what if it does? When you have free speech and we accept the obvious -- that you are responsible for your actions -- whether or not something might slightly nudge you in one direction or another is irrelevant. What, because one nutjob out of every 60,000,000 goes berzerk and -- among the billions of variables in his life, having played a video game or watched a movie or listened to a song at some point in his existence is one of those variables -- so what? We're going to dump the most primary human right overboard for that one in sixty-billion-chance person who *might* have had something to do with "consuming media"? Fucking of course not.
So we have to grow the fuck up and accept that bad shit happens, unpredictable shit happens, and nothing we can do is necessarily going to change that. Especially when there is no evidence supporting these claims. This study is one of the rare ones that shows any correlation of violence and even then, so fucking what? The closest anyone has come is scapegoating awful mass murder on videogames because "this guy once enjoyed videogames like every other person between the age of two and fifty" and, therefore, it wasn't the guns or mental health or state of mind or anything else that spurred the person into taking action . . . but "entertainment/media".
Let's move on to more meaningful discussions. These are irrelevant.
"Badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger MUSHROOM MUSHROOM!"
- a flash video containing snakes that can induce violence
Because I'm pretty sure we can't outlaw 'addiction' but I'm pretty sure we can outlaw drugs.
Some tragedy happens, perhaps a mass murder like newtown, and people who want power come out and seek to use it to control people who are scared.
Perhaps the first thing they try is to invoke a visceral response to some aspect of the tragedy, the tools used, for instance. "Let's ban guns," they say, then the tragedy wouldn't happen because the perpetrator wouldn't have the tools (conveniently ignoring the possibility that a different tool would be used...)
Some recognize this for what it is - a manipulative power grab by people who desire power, for what checks the power of a government better than a citizenry who can convincingly chose not to consent to be governed. But they can be manipulated as well. They might be tricked into bargaining for their rights, arguing for whittling down rights guaranteed by the first amendment to stave off encroachments on the second amendment. "Oh, it must be violent TV shows and video games that are the cause," they might say, and talk about "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater."
So, now we can't bring water bottles and have to take of our shoes and treated like criminals when we want to travel any great distance quickly and safely, and we're talking about regulating minor tweaks to magazine size (is 7 rounds really all that different from the typical 10-round magazine?), regulating video games and movies (are books next? newspapers? blogs?), and giving law enforcement carte blanche access to our medical records.
We shouldn't put up with any of this. Don't let the bullies divide us up into camps all arguing that this thing is important, so it's ok to concede this "less important" thing to keep it, playing us against each other for their own benefit. That path leads to the irrelevance of the rights supposedly guaranteed by the 9th, 10th, and 13th amendments...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Yeah, why haven't we ever tried that? Oh, wait, we have... And it failed miserably with alcohol, IS failing miserably with drugs, what more proof do people need that good intentioned laws don't work on ill intentioned people?
I guess this explains the antics of some of the big-name chess masters.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Next we'll outlaw alcohol, so that we eliminate all DUIs.
This signature is false.
I take offense. Genuine offense too, not silly slashdotter offense. I do not believe "the government knows better than you". I believe you by yourself are simply too weak and ineffective to stand up to corporate oligarchy. I believe power naturally accumulates into the hands of a lucky few as it's passed down generation to generation. I believe that the dark ages are a think to be feared, and that Keynesian economics, which have been proven time and again, are a better answer than the writings of a fellow from the 1800s who couldn't imagine a telephone much less global communications.
/.er's sig here to end: "For every complex problem there is a simple answer that is also wrong".
It's not that the government knows better, it's more complicated than that. That's the trouble with socialism. It's the complex answer to a complex problem. Libertarianism is the simple answer, the easy one. Simple answers always sound better, but I'll steal a fellow
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why don't you Slashcretins drink some Drano and spare
us such crap from now on ?
it's people with mental illness and easy access to firearms. I've known a lot of people with real mental illness. It's a chemical thing. When they have episodes it all seems rational. With the right meds they know better, but getting those meds riight is very, very expensive. We cut funding to their care back in the Reagan era because it was "freedom". It was really because we wanted tax cuts for the rich, but oh well. The upshot is there's out there, and they're surrounded by guns. A lot of us would rather take your guns away than pay for their treatment. The alternative is to get shot to pieces by one of them every so often. Take your pick out of those 3, but you will choose one of them. If only by default. I guess I did leave one thing off, which is just identifying and killing these people, but I doubt you've got the stomach for that.
For the record, keep your damn guns but start making the to 10% pay for these people's care. Socialism. Your taxes go up, but so does your standard of living. Go figure.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That 'wooosh' sound was the sound of his sarcasm going right over your head.
I don't see much grand standing going on. Nobody runs on gun control. It's a losing issue. Google Bill Clinton and gun control and you'll find him talking about how he lost congress over it. Pro-Gun people are single issue voters. Ironically you could take away every real freedom they have and so long as you left their guns alone they're OK (that's what it means to be a single issue voter, btw).
The anti-gun lobby is not gunning (pun) for power. They genuinely believe gun control will help. Socialized medicine and treatment for the mentally ill would help more, but they lost that battle when the health insurance lobby spent over a billion dollars to convince you the that health care was a limited resource because, hell, it's not like we couldn't train a 100,000 doctors a year for the price of America's private jets (you do the math, that's what I came up with using very, very conservative numbers).
So the people that want the shooting to stop gave up on treating the mentally ill and they're trying to just control things. I think they'll lose, but on the plus side it's put the corporate bastards on the defensive. I'll take what I can get.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Go back and do some research and try not to post off topic bullshit to forward your own irrational political ideology."
You can be angry, even violent, but ultimately you have no firepower and you can't harm me.
"Your fear is irrational"
No, guns are for killing and they kill more efficiently than a man armed with a banana. Now if I said people who carry around bananas are a threat to life, now THAT would be irrational.
"There are not a million billion crazed gun nuts seeking to kill you."
Me? I don't think the gun nuts are out to kill me, they're out to kill whoever they're angry at at the time.
"Note that I state its irrational. Not illogical."
Cool, logical.
Video games are a form of art. We must be allowed to express anything in the boundaries of art. If someone however mixes up real world with fantasy, and for example gets violent against real people, it's his own fault and he oughta be punished. If someone can not make the clear distinction between the two, something is wrong with the person, not in games.
Not to forget that there's many successful pacific games too, such as the Portal series.
at lot and it relieves LOTS of stress/anger which is caused by me spending anywherre from 1-3 hours of driving to work in the morning. (I usually have to pick up supplies at my wholesalers)
if someone goes out and does violence after playing a violent video game they're already fucked in the head. If kids are spending all of their waking non school hours infront of a game with out sociolizing obviouslt they're gonna grow up to be social retards but thats the parents fault.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Surely if you want to eliminate DUI's you simply eliminate driving while drunk as a crime? I means if it doesn't kill anyone, then you haven't taken away anyone else's rights for your selfish habit by driving while drunk!
On the other hand if alcohol doesn't cause you to be a killing machine, but DRIVING while drunk does, then you'd only outlaw the 'driving while drunk' part. i.e. the DUI law.
OK, I understand your point now, fair enough, we only make guns illegal if they have the potential to kill people. Guns *not* designed to kill stuff, we'll not outlaw.
So guns that make the loud bang part without the killing projectile, they're fine. You can enjoy yourself endlessly making loud bang noises, just without the 'bullet' projectile designed to kill and maim.
Try sports if you want violence. Can you say Soccer Hooligans or Hockey Fans? People have been killed over a little league game. Can you say the same about video games? The point they try to make is there's something special about video games that make people violent where as there's zero evidence of that. What about banning violent sports? Just try to claim boxing doesn't make people more aggressive? People want an easy answer. Take away guns and people become fluffy kittens. Ban violent video games and school shooting disappear. It's a naive belief given the simple fact the most violent people tend to not play video games or even have access to them. Terrorist don't sit around playing video games all day. Neither do street gangs. It's like saying TV makes us fat. No it's sitting on your ass watching it that makes you fat. Most of these studies are tailored to find a specific result which means they ignore the other factors.
Maybe he was referring to crispy snake bacon - you know, like horse beef burgers. It is guaranteed to make anybody violent.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
A few nights ago, I must have watched four comedies in a row, totally gluttoning out on comedy. The next day in the street, I saw some guy, and was just immediately filled with the irresistible urge to tell him a joke. The poor bastard just stood there speechless, until I hit him with the punchline, knocking him into a violent fit of laughter. The cops are still looking for me...
I think video games today and those of the past are DIFFERENT. I remember enjoying violent bloody games, partially because they were so un-P.C. They had no story, were visually they were abstract, and were not as engrossing... that is, they didn't try to become a movie version of "choose your own adventure" putting you into the role of a main character to role play.
Therapists are trained to use various kinds of role playing to work thru emotional problems; including hypnosis - where you re-live experiences in a controlled environment where you can better deal with them. Having some training in hypnosis, I can tell you that I'm convinced that watching TV really is a semi-hypnotic state for most people. It's impact is proven by the actions of advertisers, propagandists, and the military for generations!
It does not matter what anybody says about media not being influential because in practice it has been long proven otherwise. Does it turn a rabbit into a wolf? No, it is not that simple. Violent Media doesn't MAKE killers; but it also doesn't MAKE you buy stuff.... it DOES however influence you to varying degrees! To be overly simplistic: brand sales cause irrational impulse decisions when somebody's brain is not fully firing (which is more often than you'd feel comfortable with.) It works. Now when somebody is in an emotionally charged situation and not thinking clearly they are doing to be swayed to the irrational "brand" of solution to the situation. You can see this in the form of mindless talking point parrots who are too upset to think rationally in a debate or when somebody reaches for a gun...
I think modern games are too realistic and too close to the role playing a therapist uses making their impact far stronger today than it was in the past. Subtle things can make all the difference how it impacts the gamer; ultimately, it is the gamer who interprets it. A nutter is going to take something safe and twist it around - so going for the strongest emotional impact may win over the largest audience and fuel endless sequels but the nuts are probably going to be strongly impacted in another direction. That being said, I think these things could be designed to create antisocial behavior in "healthy" people... not that anybody is doing that intentionally, yet. It will happen someday. It has already been done with TV/Movies during wartime; hell, that bore the propaganda industry of today.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I took Bushman's Social Psychology class at ISU back in 2001 or so. He's genuine and persuasive on this topic. I didn't think he was explicitly anti-video games but more interested in reminding people about mediation and it's effects. That being said, we come back from class and blast each other on Counterstrike in the dorms ...
I'm from the generation that first got called to task for violent video games... Mortal Combat, Splatterhouse, Doom, etc...
I continued on and love to play intense games even today.
Once you have kids, you view of these things change,however.
Some people will change less, some more, but it affects you. You can see it happening inside them. Distancing themselves from consequences. Making aggression be the first response to a situation. In most kids, their response is subtle, and they can "handle it", but the question is should you glorify it?
Video games are an escape... this is true. It is fine for you to escape from consequences, and enjoy fantasy, but it's what you take back to the real world that defines whether you can handle it or not.
Many games are about being a hero and doing the right thing and there happens to be gore and violence along with it. But you are not behaving violent to celebrate it. Your character is being violent because he must to accomplish the task, save the girl, save the planet etc.
Games that turn this on its head are entertaining to those who understand the escape it provides ( who didn't love GTA when it came out? )
However if you are too young and don't have the life experience or morality to offset it, these games server to numb children to violence and do not give them the right skills to manage real world scenarios. It only confuses them.
You may think I am overreacting here, but please read this with a tone of reason. I am not saying violent video games should be banned, or anything outrageous. I do say, however that people should use good judgement and never assume that children are little adults. They do not function or learn the same way as adults. They do not have the maturity to understand and it will affect them.
More studies should be done about this, and I think that the video game industry should continue their classification system and encourage parents to take ti seriously.
I rambled a bit there, but hopefully someone takes something good away from this.
Why'd it have to be snakes?
with Communism. Again that's where complexity comes in. You're free to own the means of production, but you will pay to maintain a society that can use and enjoy that production.
/.. Are you an Astroturfer?
You're also using a personal attach on Keynes to discredit his economic theories. That's is actually a very sophisticated rhetorical technique for a silly message board like
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You make an excellent lack of point in your knee jerk rant. Odd that you refer to firearm owners as gun nuts, but if that is your preferred term then so be it.
It sounds like the GP's point was that a violent irrational person with a knife can hurt a person or two, but the victims can fight back or flee. That same person with a gun can cause much more harm. Given the number of wounds and deaths caused by firearms, this is not a theoretical exercise.
I await your carefully crafted and rational response, preferably one which addresses the argument rather than another frothing screed.
There are constant political groups in society that regularly demonise things like comics, rock music, pinball machines, space invaders, computer games, long hair, short hair- anything that young people are currently fascinated by.
These same groups vocally support a police-state, and frequently arrange the circumstances where other nations are invaded and subject to holocaust (see Gaza, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya etc., for recent examples). Because these political groups need EXTREMELY violent young people to act as their storm-troopers, getting a uniform from your 'government' always comes with complete immunity for all acts of atrocity carried out in the name of the government.
Think about that. Every act of rape, torture, and mass murder carried out by the filthy genocidal hordes you Yanks call an army in Afghanistan and Iraq carried total immunity from prosecution. Of course, the US military has the right to court-marshal any of its soldiers- which is a completely different principle. For those of you too thick to get it, no war crime carried out by any mercenary in Iraq or Afghanistan has every been punished in court- because the mercenaries too operated under total immunity, and unlike the official soldiers, the mercenaries answer to no military legal authority either.
Pu a young man in a uniform (especially if he has 'volunteered' for service), give him immunity (for official actions, no matter how violent), and the rates of violence from these people will be astonishing. Today, you can watch self-posted videos from Obama's terrorist in Syria, showing them raping, torturing and murdering- happy in the knowledge that Obama has given them complete immunity from future punishment.
The coming American nuclear attack against Iran will rapidly lead to massively enlarged battle-fronts that DEMAND forced service. Britain and the USA are unique amongst the major players in NOT having forced service, but both nations have advanced plans and systems in readiness. The whole "its OK to have gays and girls on the front-line" propaganda is a necessary project that addresses the fact that future compulsory service could not discriminate by the current societal principles in these two nations. If girls and gays couldn't be forced to serve, too many young men would say "count me out too", and the courts would have to back them.
Back to video games. It times of war madness, young people must be demonised, and demonised HARD, if they are not solely concerned with being in uniform and murdering the enemy on behalf of the State. It may seem the height of irony to think their are people who actually say "young people should NOT be playing violent video games, they should be in uniform mass murdering Muslims instead" but that is exactly the message Team Obama's puppet masters pump out daily in their mainstream media outlets.
The vast majority of anti-video games stories are to be found in outlets that Tony Blair's other main propagandist, George Soros, controls. Whereas most of you have heard of Murdoch, few know of the nazi George Soros, and his complete control of most so-called liberal leaning 'independent' media outlets. When a child is terrorised by the school authorities for playing an imaginary game of cops and robbers, he can thank Soros. When a young woman is thrown out of school for refusing to wear an ACTIVE, transmitting radio tag that monitors her every movement, she can thank Soros. When an infant is given a criminal record because Mom occidentally left a butter knife in the lunch box, he or she can thank Soros.
Your kids all need to be on Ritalin? That's Soros. Your sporty, and very active ten-year old is 'fat' according to a government official? That's Soros (and Soros particularly likes this one, because it reminds him of the obsession the original nazis had for measuring and categorising people).
Soros is 'political correctness' and 'zero tolerance'. These were the two massive social themes in the German Heartland when Hitler's power was rising. Post war propagand
DRM makes people violent.
I also don't eat babies. It's not magic. It's very complex and careful social policy. There is no philosophy. Only the Scientific Method. I don't have an ideology, I have a goal. If I want to build a house I don't let ideology get in the way of good architecture. Socialists will change depending on the needs. If we get it wrong, we'll ask ourselves why and try again. What we won't do is leave everything in the hands of Capitalists and hope for the best. We've seen too many cases where that didn't turn out so well.
/. was lousing with Astro turfers. With over $1 Billion in campaign money being tossed around every forum was.
And I was only half joking. During the last election
To your last point, there is no minority. We are, in the end, all human. Once we start talking minorities and going down that route it's just divide and conquer time. That's the real goal of the people funding the Libertarians (you didn't think you got national attention for you're well reasoned arguments and your Ayn Rand bumper sticker, did you?). You're at my throat, I'm at yours, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I find the idea "violent video games make people violent?" misleading to such a degree it seems generated specifically for that, to seem like an absurd argument.
But really, I see it more as "the serial killer that starts on little animals and graduates to humans", there in lies my idea that a sick mind, or one close to sickness can be exacerbated into real life violence by violent games or other violent media.
So while it may not hurt the majority of people, it will agitate some, and do so profoundly, and then you have to ask yourself "Why?"
Why are violent games and movies considered entertainment?
At what point did we except this constant stream of graphic violence in our lives so casually?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
aggressive?
Life.
I checked the original article. It doesn't support the claims about bacon. I guess it's still safe to eat breakfast. At least, safe for my family and friends. Maybe not so safe for my heart.
The reverse is also true. I ate my family and friends for breakfast and now my bacon is safe. At least until lunch.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Perfectly fine in places where they eat dogs.
If Video Games Make People Violent, So Do Pictures of Snakes
What's the "if" about? According to this study, video games can make people violent. Pictures of snakes can also make people violent. But one does not follow from/is not dependent on the other. Also:
Based on the results of their research they concluded in 2001
I know Slashdot can be a little slow on the uptake at times, but this is ridiculous!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
you just have to pay (in cash money) for the infrastructure and support systems needed for a just society. That's socialism. And again, you're mixing up the very complex system that is socialism with the very simple system that is Communism.
Being a socialist is a pain the the ass. It means no nice little sound bites. No convenient ideology. It means acknowledging real problems and having the will to solve them. You might screw up, but you don't pretend some blanket political theory or ideology can fix things. Yes, you will defer to experts, but you will strive to be an expert yourself. It's hard. That's why it's not popular. Socialism, like Math, is hard.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
U.S has a long history of blaming things like literature, booze, guns, video games, music, MJ, and not the person committing the crimes. The world has the good people and also the assholes.
I think the real problem is the violence in video games, TV and film has desensitized people to what constitutes violence and brutality. Most people have their 'humanity' meter calibrated to know what is right and wrong. They will find most of the media violence repulsive or intriguing, but completely unacceptable as reality.
The problem becomes the sociopaths and psychopaths who do not have a way to determine what is acceptable behavior. It used to be that even showing blood on TV was a no-no. Now we show beheadings, dismemberments, and mass murders as almost common occurrences. How is somebody who has a poor grasp of reality supposed to interpret this information?
Another contributing factor is the extreme repression of anything sexual in the media - it forces most forms of entertainment into violence.
We live in a very screwed up society.
you've been enjoying the positive effects of what little socialism is left. Unless your daddy was rich you were educated in public schools. You drive on public roads and the reason you could afford a home is that cheap, gov't subsidized transportation drives down the cost of housing. You drink clean water and breath clean air because of socialism (unless you're in China. Once again, it's complicated. Just because a country says their socialist doesn't mean they are. Heck, they don't even say that, they're commies).
I'm actually really tired of people like you. People who have spent the last 50 years enjoying all Socialism has to offer and because you're doing alright now you're clamoring for a return to the good old days of 16 tons, company stores and child labor. I'm tired of hearing people say you don't need socialism because companies don't do evil things anymore. Did it ever occur to you there's a REASON why they don't do as much evil as they used to? Jesus, just look at China. Oh, sorry. You can't. They're not visible from orbit anymore...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Eliminating guns won't eliminate tragedy and mass murder, there's still chemicals, crazy cults (see Japan, Tokyo, Subways).
It's just not the right solution, no matter how much justification you try to throw at it. But its impossible to implement gun free zones and perfect safety and serenity. Would you take it a step further and just brainwash and medicate people Cockwork Orange style.
Jesus wouldn't demand peoples guns by force if your one of those Christian types. Bhudda wouldn't.
Science if you really want to get into the statistics it can be argued either way depending on how you cherry pick your data. But science cannot answer moral or ethical questions. If you think science can guide ethics I believe your fully insane and have no understanding of science.
Even an atheist with morals, philosophy and ethics knows that science can not help us understand compassion, mercy, love, liberty, dignity, or understanding of the human condition.
This is my belief so I call the people ruled by fear so uncontrollable they would sacrifice their humanity. Irrational and insane.
And mark me, I don't tie guns to humanity. If it want guns it would be something else. It will one day be something other then guns, its just guns right now because everyone is so focused on them. Because humanity externalizes all its power in them right now.
Looking at snakes does not cause violence. It just makes you start chanting something about badgers and mushrooms.
This space unintentionally left blank.
And guns are designed to kill and maim, not occasionally, that would be a badly designed gun. Not hunt animals, since when has a hand gun been a hunting weapon.
So no, it's not that everyone has a happy gun they use every day and occasionally an accident happens. A whoopsie.
"It's life and death. And I am very familiar with death. I would gladly risk dieing to some horrible accident or crazy person if it ensured the peace and happiness and dignity of the world."
That's a crude appeal to emotion, not logic. You don't ensure peace in the world with the handgun in your house.
"That is the difference between animals and men and reason and uncontrolled fear"
It's the difference between Europe and the USA, Europe has gun control and far fewer murders. It also doesn't have an NRA representing the gun makers to distort the agenda.
I can successfully argue that nonviolent videogames make me more violent. For example, when I tried to play the new SimCity, it made me want to murder the executives of EA.
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
No, video games and movies do not "make" people violent. Rather, explicitly violent material reinforces neural pathways already there as part of being human. However, this also means that violent content inures and de-sensitizes consumers so that the hyper-violent is more acceptable. And, in those relatively few individuals already prone to violence due to mental health issues, it erodes the line between the real and the unreal and makes it more difficult for these folks to connect.
Eliminating guns won't eliminate tragedy and mass murder, there's still chemicals, crazy cults (see Japan, Tokyo, Subways).
Eliminating smallpox and creating vaccines for the most deadly illnesses did not stop all deaths due to illness, so therefore vaccines are foolish and should never have been created? Airbags don't stop all deaths in cars so should not exist? I prefer a rational approach where the perfect solution does not stop good improvements, but you may think differently. (And chemical mass-murders are exceedingly difficult and rare; if we were to double their severity and halve gun-deaths then the world would be a fantastically better place).
Plus I'm confused about your word "eliminating". I have heard exactly nobody propose eliminating all guns, but I've seen that straw man brought up again and again. You will sound rather less insane if you debate the actual proposals rather than an imagined evil government imprisoning and torturing all people with gun permits. As far as I can tell, you are ruled by fear of your guns being taken away which is, well, crazy.