Why Hijack? Use some of that ample drug funding to pack an ultralight with a fertilizer/diesel bomb. Use gear acquired exclusively in country and avoid airports altogether.
But you're right, people really need to realize that "Oh yeah, bad guys don't really need to go through security checkpoints to get their terror on".
A lot of the training and direction that security guards/officers get is about conversations exactly like yours. My company develops security screening technologies, and one of our constant efforts is just talking with security people about what they look for (not just airport but also run-of-the-mill rent-a-cops). These people are specifically instructed to watch out for people asking questions like that. Also for trenchcoats. I've seen countless security briefings/orientations with example images of bad guys wearing sunglasses and trench coats in unusual places. It's almost a meme within the community.
Bad moderation does happen, but on the whole I think the majority of Slashdot readers are fairly open minded and intelligent. People here really seem to enjoy a lively discussion, but I think people here also have absolutely no patience for foolish or poorly structured arguments. Fringe perspectives get some credibility if they are argued coherently, but once a poster slips into inane ramblings people stop listening.
I definitely mod this way. I'm more interested in promoting a meaningful engaging discussion. I'm more likely to throw mod points at an unusual or offbeat argument because I may want to see how others respond to the post. In this way, something of value can be gained.
The best explanation of this I've ever heard was the one given in an older Mythbusters episode.
Basically, there's no way that the FAA could fully test each mobile device in every possible operating mode with every possible configuration of flight electronics under every conceivable condition. The technology changes so quickly that even if all current cell phone tech is safe, there is no way to know if some near future piece of gear might interfere.
So they play the safe route. No unnecessary wireless transmissions or EM interference around the flight electronics. I'm not an engineer, but the cost/benefit ratio on this seems favorable to me.
To be fair, a lot of the chatter on terrorism in the last 5 years or so has been of the domestic nature. The thinking has been that disgruntled former military and LEO's possess training, probably equipment, and have already secured entry into the country. Add in a dash of motivation and you've got a recipe for a very credible threat.
OTOH credible threats from outside the US are few and far between. The one guy in recent memory that actually succeeded in smuggling equipment onto an airplane only really succeeded in setting his own giblets on fire. Threats from domestic organizations (read: militant militias) have really blown up recently (see what I did there?).
Also, the MIAC report contained no laws to speak of. Mainly it contained suggested methods that LEO's could use to identify probably members of militant militias. Granted, the implication that Ron Paul or Bob Barr were figureheads of violent revolutionary groups was a little offensive. But the concept of identifying common symbols of these organizations does make a some sense.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you sound like a little kid whining for attention. Your representatives don't just represent you. They represent a hell of a lot of other people with different concerns and problems than you. Expecting them to implement only things that benefit you is ridiculous. Of course you should vote for whoever is likely to help you more, but you're being ridiculously naive when you say things like, "And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that." A lot of other people may want exactly that.
Not harsh at all, that is exactly the right criticism. My reps do represent a number of people. My belief and understanding of our system is that our representatives should be focusing on meeting the expressed desires of their constituents. If our system were truly egalitarian, the end result of so many voices expressing their desires would be some kind of fair compromise that meets societies needs in a utilitarian way.
My concern about the health care debate was that so many political personalities viewed the bill as a personal agenda. Something that they wanted to complete as a legacy to future generations. So much so that they failed to hear or outright ignored the expressed desires of a lot of people. The bill was forced through the legislative process because it was politically expedient to do so, not because it was complete or ready.
I get what your saying, but I think I have to disagree.
I want representatives that will represent my views as best they can. That's why we call them representatives. If the purpose of electing leaders was to elect wise ones to make our decisions for us, we would be better off not using an electoral process at all. We would be better served to create a caste of Philosopher Kings that are trained from birth to make the best decisions possible regardless of the people's expressed wishes. Let the cream rise to the top so to speak.
My understanding is that the founding fathers felt that the average citizen is qualified to weigh in on these political decisions. And that we have not only the right but the responsibility to do so. Politicians are expected to be wise and virtuous because they are drawn from the citizenry, who are also wise and virtuous.
Tea Party guys, I really am halfway with you. I like the beginnings of a lot of your speeches. But somehow it always goes psycho. I'll believe you guys are sincere when you tell the Republicans to fuck off. Until then, you're the enemy that you're preaching against.
I'm with you 100%. I'm grooving with the small government thing. But the Tea Party attracts so much of the lunatic fringe it scares me. I'm tempted to try to shoot for some joke about green tea supposedly fighting free radicals, but the analogy kind of disturbs me.
For what it's worth Sarah Palin is making a great political move by branding herself as a Tea Partier. I hate that the movement is letting this happen, because she's terrible, but she's doing an excellent job of associating herself with this independently thinking small government idealogy.
The Tea Party just needs some charismatic leadership that is: sensible, not insane, and not trying to hijack the party for their own ultra-con purposes. Someone like Ron Paul, only more relevant. Once that happens I think they have the seedlings of a meaningful political party.
FUD! The collapse happened instantly all at once in July. It was Obama's fault. He singlehandedly shattered lending, destroyed jobs, and foreclose the homes of millions of upstanding hard working 'muricans.
With the House and Senate split, it's more likely that absolutely nothing will get done. Legislation just will not pass from congress to the President.
I expect lots and lots of politicking, debates, and name calling, but nothing of value will be gained. God Bless America.
I have met the man, you can not help but like him when you meet him and talk to him.
Oh yeah he's charismatic all right. As far as American presidents go, he is exceptionally chatty and approachable.
[apt-get invoke "Godwins Law"] Hitler was also described as charismatic. Likable, inspiring, and really know how to command a room.
Not trying to say that Obama is Hitler. But being a likable and friendly figure is a characteristic of powerful and effective leaders. Not necessarily just leaders with pure intentions.
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
As far as I recall, many of those amendments were trivial. And could be argued to have been attempts by Republicans to mitigate effects of a bill they believed they were incapable of stopping. Republicans are already being criticized for not fully accepting the Dem's offer of involvement (whether or not that offer was genuine is another debate); refusing to involve themselves in the process entirely would have been disastrous.
And another poster here made a very good point. The Dems "allowing" them to be involved with amendments and calling that an offer of compromise is facetious. Many principle objective of the reform bill that were never put up for compromise are fundamentally opposed to a traditional Republican viewpoint (i.e. the Individual Mandate).
I think it would be fair to say that neither party was very interested in engaging the other in any meaningful way. Dems ostensibly desired Republican support but (clearly) were willing and able to push forward without it. Republicans cried foul at being "cut out of the process" but really just wished they were strong enough to kill the thing outright. Whatever your personal political leanings, the healthcare debate was not a stellar example of bi-partisan American politics.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
A perspective (that happens to be mine) is that the only real problem is the cost.
I don't care about providing universal coverage for all. I don't care about mandating coverage. I care about my own healthcare costs. From this perspective, I expect my elected officials to champion my interests. The idea being that if you get 100 senators and 435 representatives all looking out for the expressed interests of their constituents you will eventually get a compromised piece of functioning legislation.
Instead, what we got was a self serving piece of garbage intended to leave a "Democratic Legacy" shrouded in some pseudo altruistic nonsense. We got a ridiculous amalgamation of pet projects and wishful thinking that commits American taxpayers to picking up the insurance and medical costs of the uninsured. I don't want that. And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that.
This was my issue with the healthcare bill. Cost, and lack of consideration for the people that will be bearing the brunt of the increased costs.
Now, again, there have been other studies which reached the opposite conclusion. These can't simply be ignored.
Of course not. The existence of a disagreement within the literature would imply that whatever measures we are using are detecting some kind of effect. However the cause is not sufficiently understood. Which is what I've been saying.
Violent video games might have something to do with it. It might not. I think they do, but I might be wrong. I am reasonably sure that just acting like they're completely unrelated in the absence of absolute proof is irresponsible, and incompatible with good science.
We've never seen a true experimental model proving that cigarettes cause cancer. But the correlational data and our understanding of human physiology concur with the assertion, so we go with it.
Even if you could, that would also just be their opinion.
Don't be pedantic. My point is that there is no universal authoritative definition of the correct role of the parent. As someone commenting on the nature of logical fallacies, I expected you would understand a sarcastic appeal to authority.
"Children physiologically do not have the same neural structures for higher order decision making as adults."
That doesn't mean none of them can make rational choices.
No, not at all. Simply that they tend to be less capable of making rational decisions than an adult. Come on now.
other studies, again, have reached the opposite conclusion. Really. Google it.
I have researched this. And certainly there is disagreement on the issue. Which is kind of the point I've been making. I feel compelled to point out that good logical science implies that even an absence of proof does not mean an assertation is untrue. Disproving a blanket statement like this is a logically impossible task. However after even a basic review of the literature, one can easily say that there evidence both supporting and contradicting a causal relationship between violent media and violent behavior. There is no reasonable ground to say that the statement is entirely true or entirely false.
Personally, when I see such a huge body of literature with such disagreement I tend to think that something is going on. We don't know what the exact nature of the effect is, we can't quantify or describe it, but there's clearly something there. Requiring absolute certainty before acknowledging the possibility that the effect is present doesn't help at all.
...they have no real evidence that proves any of this with 100% accuracy (and they aren't even near that, either...
That's the nature of social sciences. There is no such thing as certainty when dealing with human behavior....probably.
...this law is a terrible idea (even if it was true, it would still be a terrible idea).
On this point, I actually agree with you. Because the relationship is poorly understood (can we agree to disagree on that?) and because the role of parental guidance is subjective, mandating this mentality by law is a terrible path.
the function of a parent is to educate their children on how to make decisions that won't cause them physical harm and to teach them to be free thinkers, not indoctrinated drones.
That's your opinion of the function of a parent. On a personal level (and for the sake of a good debate) I disagree. Unless we can actually appeal to Jeebus or FSM for a complete and universal definition of parenting, then the role of a parent is entirely subjective.
Children physiologically do not have the same neural structures for higher order decision making as adults. That's not to say the children are incapable of making decisions, or that they are incapable of making informed decisions about their own welfare, just that they have less hardware to be able to compute with.
A huge portion of it assumes that correlation equals causation, which is a logical fallacy.
Not as fallacious as outright ignoring correlational relationships on the grounds that causation is not explicitly stamped on your forehead in big block letters. If you're looking for research that "proves" "causation
On what point do you disagree with? Was the experimental model flawed? Poor statistical analysis? You keep repeating "there is no proof" so often you sound like a kid going "nuh-uh!" refusing to listen to evidence that might contradict your fragile world view.
FTFA: "In the laboratory, college students who played a violent video game behaved more aggressively toward an opponent than did students who had played a nonviolent video game. Outside the laboratory, students who reported playing more violent video games over a period of years also engaged in more aggressive behavior in their own lives.". In the realm of social sciences, this is as close to "proof" as you can get that there is a demonstrable effect of violent game play on real world behavior (though outside of theoretical sciences most researchers avoid the term proof).
Correlational evidence is very often used to describe causal relationships. Especially with the social sciences, where the items being studied are themselves such complex systems that single solitary "causes" just don't exist (Probably. People are complicated.).
I played violent video games at no older than the age of five and was able to differentiate them from 'reality'. It is not a difficult concept.
Did you bother to read the articles? You didn't mention them but continued to comment on a perceived lack of evidence of an effect.
Snarkiness aside, I still have to disagree. Conscious discrimination of violent video games from real life does not negate their effects. Humans are wired to observe and emulate behaviors of other individuals. This emulation has been shown to extend to individuals portrayed in simulated settings. This is an entirely normal socialization behavior. And the key is, this happens completely irrespective of conscious awareness. The fact that you are aware of it means absolutely jack shit other than that you can describe what is happening.
Before you tell me there is no proof, just take a second and do some googling. This is totally real. Trust me, I'm a Psychologist. I wrote a thesis on the effects of violent media on child behavior (though it was an undergrad thesis, so it almost doesn't count).
Opinions certainly do matter. Especially in the absence of universally understood "facts".
Your arguments against what you call censorship on the part of the parents would seem to imply that you believe children are capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare, and everyone else should just butt out. A major role of parents is and must be to train their children on socially normal roles and behaviors (if you want to call that indoctrination that's fine).
Video games do not cause violence. People who are detached from reality believe they do, however.
Violence is an extremely complex behavior. There is never a single solitary cause. Violent video games do contribute to the perception that violent behavior is acceptable, which reduces the perceived social cost for the individual engaging in such behavior. Violent video games facilitate and enabe violent behavior; read the articles at http://web.clark.edu/mjackson/anderson.and.dill.html and http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ab.pdf. To say that because they aren't the sole cause means they're totally safe for kids is overly simplistic.
Cheeky, this is the 2nd time I'm replying to you on this story, so I won't go into a really detailed response. But your assertion that there is no evidence of a relationship with violent interactive media (games) and violent behavior is not entirely correct.
Take a moment and google for an article titled "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life" (Anderson & Dill, 2000). It's a quick read. The experimental models discussed are fairly basic, but there are direct, observable, and repeatable effects on real life behavior as a result of playing violent video games.
Anderson especially is fairly opinionated (If you're still reading take another moment to google "Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions" (Anderson, 2003). But most of his conclusions are drawn from methodologically solid and repeatable research.
The full extent of violent games effect on real world behavior is not fully understood. But we can't ignore the partial understanding that we do have.
That's obviously a matter of opinion. Which is why this issue still exists as a going debate.
I think it's short sighted to point to a specific piece of violent or graphic material and say "That right there is inappropriate for all children, ever. Ban it." I think it's more realistic to say that some material is inappropriate for some children. Such judgments are inherently subjective and really depend on the child in question. Our society has long respected the right (and responsibility!) of the parent to make those judgments for their own children.
I'm very wary about this issue being decided within SCOTUS. I would much prefer retailers just play nice, like Movie Theaters do with the MPAA.
Plus, the "violence" depicted in Doom, Wolf 3D, and Quake was very different from the violence depicted in some current games. I'm hard pressed to find moral issues with shooting huge numbers of simulated hell demons, Nazis, and evil cyborgs (respectively).
But in modern games (especially with the GTA series as is often cited) there are reward systems in place for engaged in violence against simulated hookers, pedestrians, and law enforcement officers.
Modern games are very different from the shooters most of us grew up on.
Slashdot Mirror
Why Hijack? Use some of that ample drug funding to pack an ultralight with a fertilizer/diesel bomb. Use gear acquired exclusively in country and avoid airports altogether.
But you're right, people really need to realize that "Oh yeah, bad guys don't really need to go through security checkpoints to get their terror on".
p.s. IANAT.
A lot of the training and direction that security guards/officers get is about conversations exactly like yours. My company develops security screening technologies, and one of our constant efforts is just talking with security people about what they look for (not just airport but also run-of-the-mill rent-a-cops). These people are specifically instructed to watch out for people asking questions like that. Also for trenchcoats. I've seen countless security briefings/orientations with example images of bad guys wearing sunglasses and trench coats in unusual places. It's almost a meme within the community.
I've got several acres of grass out in my backyard. Tell you what, I'll even throw in an open bar and still only charge half what the cruise costs.
I wish I had some mod points for you.
Bad moderation does happen, but on the whole I think the majority of Slashdot readers are fairly open minded and intelligent. People here really seem to enjoy a lively discussion, but I think people here also have absolutely no patience for foolish or poorly structured arguments. Fringe perspectives get some credibility if they are argued coherently, but once a poster slips into inane ramblings people stop listening.
I definitely mod this way. I'm more interested in promoting a meaningful engaging discussion. I'm more likely to throw mod points at an unusual or offbeat argument because I may want to see how others respond to the post. In this way, something of value can be gained.
The best explanation of this I've ever heard was the one given in an older Mythbusters episode.
Basically, there's no way that the FAA could fully test each mobile device in every possible operating mode with every possible configuration of flight electronics under every conceivable condition. The technology changes so quickly that even if all current cell phone tech is safe, there is no way to know if some near future piece of gear might interfere.
So they play the safe route. No unnecessary wireless transmissions or EM interference around the flight electronics. I'm not an engineer, but the cost/benefit ratio on this seems favorable to me.
Why go to that hassle when TSA has helpfully provided you with a easy to target group of victims at the security line?
Or when the US Military has provided a number of juicy infidelious targets already conveniently located in the middle east.
Really now that actually taking control of a commercial aircraft is all but impossible, those aircraft are no longer the really high value targets.
To be fair, a lot of the chatter on terrorism in the last 5 years or so has been of the domestic nature. The thinking has been that disgruntled former military and LEO's possess training, probably equipment, and have already secured entry into the country. Add in a dash of motivation and you've got a recipe for a very credible threat.
OTOH credible threats from outside the US are few and far between. The one guy in recent memory that actually succeeded in smuggling equipment onto an airplane only really succeeded in setting his own giblets on fire. Threats from domestic organizations (read: militant militias) have really blown up recently (see what I did there?).
Also, the MIAC report contained no laws to speak of. Mainly it contained suggested methods that LEO's could use to identify probably members of militant militias. Granted, the implication that Ron Paul or Bob Barr were figureheads of violent revolutionary groups was a little offensive. But the concept of identifying common symbols of these organizations does make a some sense.
Whether they're infringing or not is not the important thing, it's whether they decide it's worth it to sue.. it's like a giant game of chess.
Gooooood analogy. That's perfect.
I don't mean to be overly harsh, but you sound like a little kid whining for attention. Your representatives don't just represent you. They represent a hell of a lot of other people with different concerns and problems than you. Expecting them to implement only things that benefit you is ridiculous. Of course you should vote for whoever is likely to help you more, but you're being ridiculously naive when you say things like, "And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that." A lot of other people may want exactly that.
Not harsh at all, that is exactly the right criticism. My reps do represent a number of people. My belief and understanding of our system is that our representatives should be focusing on meeting the expressed desires of their constituents. If our system were truly egalitarian, the end result of so many voices expressing their desires would be some kind of fair compromise that meets societies needs in a utilitarian way.
My concern about the health care debate was that so many political personalities viewed the bill as a personal agenda. Something that they wanted to complete as a legacy to future generations. So much so that they failed to hear or outright ignored the expressed desires of a lot of people. The bill was forced through the legislative process because it was politically expedient to do so, not because it was complete or ready.
I get what your saying, but I think I have to disagree.
I want representatives that will represent my views as best they can. That's why we call them representatives. If the purpose of electing leaders was to elect wise ones to make our decisions for us, we would be better off not using an electoral process at all. We would be better served to create a caste of Philosopher Kings that are trained from birth to make the best decisions possible regardless of the people's expressed wishes. Let the cream rise to the top so to speak.
My understanding is that the founding fathers felt that the average citizen is qualified to weigh in on these political decisions. And that we have not only the right but the responsibility to do so. Politicians are expected to be wise and virtuous because they are drawn from the citizenry, who are also wise and virtuous.
Tea Party guys, I really am halfway with you. I like the beginnings of a lot of your speeches. But somehow it always goes psycho. I'll believe you guys are sincere when you tell the Republicans to fuck off. Until then, you're the enemy that you're preaching against.
I'm with you 100%. I'm grooving with the small government thing. But the Tea Party attracts so much of the lunatic fringe it scares me. I'm tempted to try to shoot for some joke about green tea supposedly fighting free radicals, but the analogy kind of disturbs me.
For what it's worth Sarah Palin is making a great political move by branding herself as a Tea Partier. I hate that the movement is letting this happen, because she's terrible, but she's doing an excellent job of associating herself with this independently thinking small government idealogy.
The Tea Party just needs some charismatic leadership that is: sensible, not insane, and not trying to hijack the party for their own ultra-con purposes. Someone like Ron Paul, only more relevant. Once that happens I think they have the seedlings of a meaningful political party.
FUD! The collapse happened instantly all at once in July. It was Obama's fault. He singlehandedly shattered lending, destroyed jobs, and foreclose the homes of millions of upstanding hard working 'muricans.
With the House and Senate split, it's more likely that absolutely nothing will get done. Legislation just will not pass from congress to the President.
I expect lots and lots of politicking, debates, and name calling, but nothing of value will be gained. God Bless America.
I have met the man, you can not help but like him when you meet him and talk to him.
Oh yeah he's charismatic all right. As far as American presidents go, he is exceptionally chatty and approachable.
[apt-get invoke "Godwins Law"] Hitler was also described as charismatic. Likable, inspiring, and really know how to command a room.
Not trying to say that Obama is Hitler. But being a likable and friendly figure is a characteristic of powerful and effective leaders. Not necessarily just leaders with pure intentions.
The fact that Republicans got 161 amendments added to the health care bill and they still didn't vote for it doesn't indicate to me that they're interested in engaging with Democrats in any meaningful way.
As far as I recall, many of those amendments were trivial. And could be argued to have been attempts by Republicans to mitigate effects of a bill they believed they were incapable of stopping. Republicans are already being criticized for not fully accepting the Dem's offer of involvement (whether or not that offer was genuine is another debate); refusing to involve themselves in the process entirely would have been disastrous.
And another poster here made a very good point. The Dems "allowing" them to be involved with amendments and calling that an offer of compromise is facetious. Many principle objective of the reform bill that were never put up for compromise are fundamentally opposed to a traditional Republican viewpoint (i.e. the Individual Mandate).
I think it would be fair to say that neither party was very interested in engaging the other in any meaningful way. Dems ostensibly desired Republican support but (clearly) were willing and able to push forward without it. Republicans cried foul at being "cut out of the process" but really just wished they were strong enough to kill the thing outright. Whatever your personal political leanings, the healthcare debate was not a stellar example of bi-partisan American politics.
Republican health care ideas might have lead to some savings in some areas, but they aren't going to fix the real problems.
A perspective (that happens to be mine) is that the only real problem is the cost.
I don't care about providing universal coverage for all. I don't care about mandating coverage. I care about my own healthcare costs. From this perspective, I expect my elected officials to champion my interests. The idea being that if you get 100 senators and 435 representatives all looking out for the expressed interests of their constituents you will eventually get a compromised piece of functioning legislation.
Instead, what we got was a self serving piece of garbage intended to leave a "Democratic Legacy" shrouded in some pseudo altruistic nonsense. We got a ridiculous amalgamation of pet projects and wishful thinking that commits American taxpayers to picking up the insurance and medical costs of the uninsured. I don't want that. And I want my elected officials to listen to me when I say that I don't want that.
This was my issue with the healthcare bill. Cost, and lack of consideration for the people that will be bearing the brunt of the increased costs.
Now, again, there have been other studies which reached the opposite conclusion. These can't simply be ignored.
Of course not. The existence of a disagreement within the literature would imply that whatever measures we are using are detecting some kind of effect. However the cause is not sufficiently understood. Which is what I've been saying.
Violent video games might have something to do with it. It might not. I think they do, but I might be wrong. I am reasonably sure that just acting like they're completely unrelated in the absence of absolute proof is irresponsible, and incompatible with good science.
We've never seen a true experimental model proving that cigarettes cause cancer. But the correlational data and our understanding of human physiology concur with the assertion, so we go with it.
"Unless we can actually appeal to Jeebus or FSM"
Even if you could, that would also just be their opinion.
Don't be pedantic. My point is that there is no universal authoritative definition of the correct role of the parent. As someone commenting on the nature of logical fallacies, I expected you would understand a sarcastic appeal to authority.
"Children physiologically do not have the same neural structures for higher order decision making as adults."
That doesn't mean none of them can make rational choices.
No, not at all. Simply that they tend to be less capable of making rational decisions than an adult. Come on now.
other studies, again, have reached the opposite conclusion. Really. Google it.
I have researched this. And certainly there is disagreement on the issue. Which is kind of the point I've been making. I feel compelled to point out that good logical science implies that even an absence of proof does not mean an assertation is untrue. Disproving a blanket statement like this is a logically impossible task. However after even a basic review of the literature, one can easily say that there evidence both supporting and contradicting a causal relationship between violent media and violent behavior. There is no reasonable ground to say that the statement is entirely true or entirely false.
Personally, when I see such a huge body of literature with such disagreement I tend to think that something is going on. We don't know what the exact nature of the effect is, we can't quantify or describe it, but there's clearly something there. Requiring absolute certainty before acknowledging the possibility that the effect is present doesn't help at all.
...they have no real evidence that proves any of this with 100% accuracy (and they aren't even near that, either...
That's the nature of social sciences. There is no such thing as certainty when dealing with human behavior. ...probably.
...this law is a terrible idea (even if it was true, it would still be a terrible idea).
On this point, I actually agree with you. Because the relationship is poorly understood (can we agree to disagree on that?) and because the role of parental guidance is subjective, mandating this mentality by law is a terrible path.
the function of a parent is to educate their children on how to make decisions that won't cause them physical harm and to teach them to be free thinkers, not indoctrinated drones.
That's your opinion of the function of a parent. On a personal level (and for the sake of a good debate) I disagree. Unless we can actually appeal to Jeebus or FSM for a complete and universal definition of parenting, then the role of a parent is entirely subjective.
Children physiologically do not have the same neural structures for higher order decision making as adults. That's not to say the children are incapable of making decisions, or that they are incapable of making informed decisions about their own welfare, just that they have less hardware to be able to compute with.
A huge portion of it assumes that correlation equals causation, which is a logical fallacy.
Not as fallacious as outright ignoring correlational relationships on the grounds that causation is not explicitly stamped on your forehead in big block letters. If you're looking for research that "proves" "causation
On what point do you disagree with? Was the experimental model flawed? Poor statistical analysis? You keep repeating "there is no proof" so often you sound like a kid going "nuh-uh!" refusing to listen to evidence that might contradict your fragile world view.
FTFA: "In the laboratory, college students who played a violent video game behaved more aggressively toward an opponent than did students who had played a nonviolent video game. Outside the laboratory, students who reported playing more violent video games over a period of years also engaged in more aggressive behavior in their own lives.". In the realm of social sciences, this is as close to "proof" as you can get that there is a demonstrable effect of violent game play on real world behavior (though outside of theoretical sciences most researchers avoid the term proof).
Correlational evidence is very often used to describe causal relationships. Especially with the social sciences, where the items being studied are themselves such complex systems that single solitary "causes" just don't exist (Probably. People are complicated.).
I played violent video games at no older than the age of five and was able to differentiate them from 'reality'. It is not a difficult concept.
Did you bother to read the articles? You didn't mention them but continued to comment on a perceived lack of evidence of an effect.
Snarkiness aside, I still have to disagree. Conscious discrimination of violent video games from real life does not negate their effects. Humans are wired to observe and emulate behaviors of other individuals. This emulation has been shown to extend to individuals portrayed in simulated settings. This is an entirely normal socialization behavior. And the key is, this happens completely irrespective of conscious awareness. The fact that you are aware of it means absolutely jack shit other than that you can describe what is happening.
Before you tell me there is no proof, just take a second and do some googling. This is totally real. Trust me, I'm a Psychologist. I wrote a thesis on the effects of violent media on child behavior (though it was an undergrad thesis, so it almost doesn't count).
Opinions don't matter. What matters is facts.
Opinions certainly do matter. Especially in the absence of universally understood "facts".
Your arguments against what you call censorship on the part of the parents would seem to imply that you believe children are capable of making rational decisions about their own welfare, and everyone else should just butt out. A major role of parents is and must be to train their children on socially normal roles and behaviors (if you want to call that indoctrination that's fine).
Video games do not cause violence. People who are detached from reality believe they do, however.
Violence is an extremely complex behavior. There is never a single solitary cause. Violent video games do contribute to the perception that violent behavior is acceptable, which reduces the perceived social cost for the individual engaging in such behavior. Violent video games facilitate and enabe violent behavior; read the articles at http://web.clark.edu/mjackson/anderson.and.dill.html and http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ab.pdf. To say that because they aren't the sole cause means they're totally safe for kids is overly simplistic.
Cheeky, this is the 2nd time I'm replying to you on this story, so I won't go into a really detailed response. But your assertion that there is no evidence of a relationship with violent interactive media (games) and violent behavior is not entirely correct.
Take a moment and google for an article titled "Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life" (Anderson & Dill, 2000). It's a quick read. The experimental models discussed are fairly basic, but there are direct, observable, and repeatable effects on real life behavior as a result of playing violent video games.
Anderson especially is fairly opinionated (If you're still reading take another moment to google "Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions" (Anderson, 2003). But most of his conclusions are drawn from methodologically solid and repeatable research.
The full extent of violent games effect on real world behavior is not fully understood. But we can't ignore the partial understanding that we do have.
That's obviously a matter of opinion. Which is why this issue still exists as a going debate.
I think it's short sighted to point to a specific piece of violent or graphic material and say "That right there is inappropriate for all children, ever. Ban it." I think it's more realistic to say that some material is inappropriate for some children. Such judgments are inherently subjective and really depend on the child in question. Our society has long respected the right (and responsibility!) of the parent to make those judgments for their own children.
I'm very wary about this issue being decided within SCOTUS. I would much prefer retailers just play nice, like Movie Theaters do with the MPAA.
Plus, the "violence" depicted in Doom, Wolf 3D, and Quake was very different from the violence depicted in some current games. I'm hard pressed to find moral issues with shooting huge numbers of simulated hell demons, Nazis, and evil cyborgs (respectively).
But in modern games (especially with the GTA series as is often cited) there are reward systems in place for engaged in violence against simulated hookers, pedestrians, and law enforcement officers.
Modern games are very different from the shooters most of us grew up on.