But we're talking about people who only view it. In this instance, you actively instigated the act and even went so far as to determine someone's future actions with a cash payment. There is a big difference.
Which isn't "evil" to all individuals. Whether something is "good" or "bad" is subjective, really. Personally, I think it's evil, but that does not make it a fact.
Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification.
And? How does it logically do any further harm? Looking at the picture can't harm the child anymore than they have already been harmed.
Whether you share the porn or buy it, you're part of the chain that started with exploitation
The difference is that, more often than not, the people who made it won't even know that the people who didn't give them money, but still viewed it, even exist.
Either motivation exploits children.
Why does the same not apply to murder pictures and the like? People who like that type of stuff are supporting the behavior, according to you, right (even if they don't give anyone any money for the pictures)?
The people who hurt the children are the ones who actually hurt the children, anyway. Not random people who merely view images anonymously, I believe.
Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally.
And looking at a picture will change nothing. It won't somehow make the situation worse. If people are so afraid of them, for some reason, beginning to buy child porn, despite the fact that most people apparently don't (if that's true), then why don't they also ban murder photos and the like?
The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil.
Honestly, if true (it's almost impossible to accurately determine the amount of 'pirates'), why would the average person even care about this enough to stop supporting the console because of it?
Some people are susceptible to "insanity" from violent games/movies/etc.
Some people, yes. But I suspect that that's not many, or we'd be seeing a lot more violence, would we not? I certainly don't worry about it.
spoilt rotten, lack of close adult contact/supervision/guidence (generally lack of interest from parents
Wouldn't it take far more than this to make someone go 'insane' merely by playing/viewing a fictional piece of entertainment? These can be 'bad', but I wouldn't say that they're that bad.
and/or having psychological/physiological conditions which prevent or pervert their proper mental functions.
Kids can vary greatly in maturity in the 13 - 17 bracket
So can people in general. But, really, what does "maturity" have to do with it? Whether they're mature or not, they likely won't go 'insane' from playing a video game.
and the people in the best position to judge are their parents.
It's probably better than the government or someone similar doing it, but it is by no means a good solution.
Unless you've been in a situation where you've had all intellectual impediments to killing removed and seen that you were in fact able and willing to kill, I'm not sure how you can assert this.
You're right. It's mere speculation. Judging from my past and current feelings, though, that's what I believe.
"Viewing" and "playing" are completely different. Viewing does not train a behavior, playing does.
So you say. But my point still stands nonetheless. There's plenty of people who play violent video games. The effect, if it exists, appears to be extremely small and not worth worrying about.
One can certainly argue that the evidence is not conclusive, but to say that it's nonexistent demonstrates either gross ignorance or a strong unwillingness to step beyond one's personal biases and look at the matter scientifically.
It's amusing how one of the few statements that I didn't add "that I've seen" to got picked out for that so quickly. Anyway, that is not what I meant. I meant that, as far as I know, no study has linked real-world violence to violent entertainment. It would be very difficult to do so accurately. You talked about desensitized people going 'insane' and then killing people. How often does that happen, I wonder? What studies can accurately prove this? Were the people even 'normal' to begin with? The studies you linked to do in some way relate to that, but as you said, they're not really very conclusive at all.
Desensitizing people to killing -- a deliberate goal of military training, and a possible outcome of some sorts of violent video games -- does not affect the intellectual, conscious decision to not kill, but it does affect the instinctive one.
I see. I lost the "instinctive" one long ago, and I have no plans to ever kill anyone. I'm against violence, in fact.
If a person's intellectual inhibition then falls because they become extremely agitated to the point of irrationality, or because they are socialized to regard some group of people as not fully human (commonly used in times of war), then they will be capable of killing.
And, judging from the amount of people that view/play violent entertainment, this does not appear to happen often (the killing), if at all (if it happens, there's no real evidence for it). So, as far as I see, either it doesn't desensitize very many people, or they just aren't 'insane' enough to kill other people merely because they would be more calm about it.
The main point in the article, is how almost none of the few published papers by the people signing to "video games don't cause violence" brief were published in respectable psychological journals.
But did they even look at the actual studies to determine if any of them were valid? What's the point of this? The fact that they aren't published in "respectable psychological journals" does not alone prove them wrong or warrant doubting them without even seeing them.
So unless you can do proper science that disproves that video games are a risk factor for agression
I'm not too worried about aggression, especially if it's temporary, as many of the studies seem to imply.
"video games aren't related to ANY violence at all!"
I can't speak for them, but I speculate that most of them probably mean that any 'normal' person wouldn't be so drastically effected by a video game that it would change them completely.
However, it can be easily shown that some video games are related to the release of endorphins and adrenaline, which is why they are "fun."
That almost never amounts to anything. Temporary aggressive thoughts, maybe. But given the amount of people who view/play violent entertainment, you'd think that more people would be violent. The effect is likely so miniscule that it doesn't do anything to the average person, even if they are children.
It does? Only if the original studies were actually valid and truly proved what they were attempting to prove. I've seen none that actually link real-world violence to violent entertainment. Only temporary aggressive thoughts which almost never amount to anything.
They might desensitize people to some forms of violence (though I doubt many people would still be able to react normally in the face of such if it happened to them in real life). But what does it matter? That just means that they'd be more calm in said situation, not that they'd begin voluntarily participating in violence. I'd say it's a good thing if people react more calmly.
Also, a lot of people claiming something is true does not make it so. The validity of the studies must be questioned, as well as what the studies really prove, if anything. Many of them merely link violent entertainment to temporary aggressive thoughts, from what I've seen. Those aggressive thoughts likely disappear soon enough, and almost never amount to anything.
I don't have to "prove" it, it's obvious from the statements made by Nintendo and Sony, e.g. Peter Dille calls the rampant piracy sickening [gamasutra.com]. It's obvious just from looking at the torrent sites.
But how do you or they know how many there truly are? Did they scour the entire internet and find every single 'pirate', past and present?
If Other OS became a means to root the PS3, then it would not be long before custom Linux isos appeared whose express purpose was to install, root the box and install CFW.
I see. So everyone would just magically gain technical expertise. The average person doesn't even know how to install a crack, apparently.
I suggest you furnish yourself with a clue concerning what the threat meant.
I know what it meant. Rampant 'piracy' or not, it was an advertised feature that was used by some people, and it was removed. The people who used it should possibly be compensated for that. If they didn't want it, they should not have put it in, or they should have better secured it. It should be far, far too late after the customer bought it to decide to remove it. EULAs don't override the law, either. I think that there's something terribly wrong if corporations can, at any time, change their terms, and then remove advertised features present in their product from all customers.
If they don't like 'pirates', they should go after them individually like they would have to otherwise, not remove features for everyone because they're paranoid. The 'pirates' will just find a way around this, as well.
I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation.
Oh, right. Sorry. I'm just used to talking about the first amendment when someone mentions free speech. I don't really care what a lot of people think it means (especially if they leave out important details).
You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion.
"Established meaning"? The only "established meaning" that "freedom of speech" has is exactly what it implies: freedom of speech. That's what it says in the constitution, and, as far as the law is concerned, that is all that matters. That is what we know for a fact. If we go by that logic, the government (or someone) could merely say, "The first amendment doesn't protect opinions that criticize the government! That wasn't its established meaning!" They could create exceptions (which they've already done) even more easily than they can now.
Rampant piracy exists on the DS and PSP and the Wii isn't looking good either.
So you say. But, can you prove it?
It would harm end users too since if the money isn't there to make premium games
How? If hardly anyone uses OtherOS (or has the technical expertise to enable the hacks), then how could they possibly 'lose' significant portions of potential profit?
As for they should have better secured their system, well yeah, but now they are in this situation you think they should stand back and do nothing?
Since it is/was an advertised feature: yes. They won't ever stop 'pirates'. They will be there, OtherOS or not.
a feature used by a miniscule number of users
Yet there's rampant 'piracy' because of it? Taking things away and tricking customers is 'okay' as long as there's only a few of them?
You don't realize that the smarter people can snap off in case of emergency.
I personally wouldn't call an overly panicky person smart, but even if they were, that does not destroy the point I am attempting to make. The speech is not what hurts people. Human stupidity hurts people in these situations. The speech can't make them do anything. Indeed, I'd say the behavior is stupid, even if the individual is not, and any damage they cause is their own fault, and not the fault of mere words.
In the same fashion you do realize that at any point a country can elect a new Constituent assembly and shove the former Constitution to the bin?
Yes. But, until then, the current constitution is still in effect.
There are, despite your claims, several constant limits on free speech.
That doesn't imply that they are constitutional. It's just that some people decided they liked it, and those restrictions, despite not existing in the first amendment, were put in place.
if your free speech is causing undue and quantifiable damage to me
It is people that cause that damage, not speech. If someone chooses to act based on faulty information without even verifying it, then who is at fault? The speech didn't make them do anything.
It is not the speech that is dangerous. It is human stupidity. The willfulness of people to believe things without even verifying it. Speech is mere words. They alone can not do any harm. If people are stupid and do idiotic things based on that speech, then that is their own fault. They decide that for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
If you pay someone to do a contract murder
But we're talking about people who only view it. In this instance, you actively instigated the act and even went so far as to determine someone's future actions with a cash payment. There is a big difference.
It's evil because children are exploited.
Which isn't "evil" to all individuals. Whether something is "good" or "bad" is subjective, really. Personally, I think it's evil, but that does not make it a fact.
Looking at the picture gives vicarious gratification.
And? How does it logically do any further harm? Looking at the picture can't harm the child anymore than they have already been harmed.
Whether you share the porn or buy it, you're part of the chain that started with exploitation
The difference is that, more often than not, the people who made it won't even know that the people who didn't give them money, but still viewed it, even exist.
Either motivation exploits children.
Why does the same not apply to murder pictures and the like? People who like that type of stuff are supporting the behavior, according to you, right (even if they don't give anyone any money for the pictures)?
The people who hurt the children are the ones who actually hurt the children, anyway. Not random people who merely view images anonymously, I believe.
Somebody makes these photos, domestically or internationally.
And looking at a picture will change nothing. It won't somehow make the situation worse. If people are so afraid of them, for some reason, beginning to buy child porn, despite the fact that most people apparently don't (if that's true), then why don't they also ban murder photos and the like?
The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is plainly evil.
That depends on your definition of "evil."
massive levels of piracy
Honestly, if true (it's almost impossible to accurately determine the amount of 'pirates'), why would the average person even care about this enough to stop supporting the console because of it?
patience to do it (i.e. no job and/or social life)
You can have a job and a social life and still be able to find the time to hack the console if you spend your time wisely.
desire to do it (as opposed to, I don't know, PLAYING FUCKING GAMES ON THE DAMN GAME CONSOLE
Some people have different hobbies. Perhaps they like hacking more than playing the games (or they're tired of the games right now)?
Some people are susceptible to "insanity" from violent games/movies/etc.
Some people, yes. But I suspect that that's not many, or we'd be seeing a lot more violence, would we not? I certainly don't worry about it.
spoilt rotten, lack of close adult contact/supervision/guidence (generally lack of interest from parents
Wouldn't it take far more than this to make someone go 'insane' merely by playing/viewing a fictional piece of entertainment? These can be 'bad', but I wouldn't say that they're that bad.
and/or having psychological/physiological conditions which prevent or pervert their proper mental functions.
I'd say this is the actual cause.
Kids can vary greatly in maturity in the 13 - 17 bracket
So can people in general. But, really, what does "maturity" have to do with it? Whether they're mature or not, they likely won't go 'insane' from playing a video game.
and the people in the best position to judge are their parents.
It's probably better than the government or someone similar doing it, but it is by no means a good solution.
Oh, you're right. It seems I heavily misinterpreted him there.
Unless you've been in a situation where you've had all intellectual impediments to killing removed and seen that you were in fact able and willing to kill, I'm not sure how you can assert this.
You're right. It's mere speculation. Judging from my past and current feelings, though, that's what I believe.
"Viewing" and "playing" are completely different. Viewing does not train a behavior, playing does.
So you say. But my point still stands nonetheless. There's plenty of people who play violent video games. The effect, if it exists, appears to be extremely small and not worth worrying about.
One can certainly argue that the evidence is not conclusive, but to say that it's nonexistent demonstrates either gross ignorance or a strong unwillingness to step beyond one's personal biases and look at the matter scientifically.
It's amusing how one of the few statements that I didn't add "that I've seen" to got picked out for that so quickly. Anyway, that is not what I meant. I meant that, as far as I know, no study has linked real-world violence to violent entertainment. It would be very difficult to do so accurately. You talked about desensitized people going 'insane' and then killing people. How often does that happen, I wonder? What studies can accurately prove this? Were the people even 'normal' to begin with? The studies you linked to do in some way relate to that, but as you said, they're not really very conclusive at all.
Desensitizing people to killing -- a deliberate goal of military training, and a possible outcome of some sorts of violent video games -- does not affect the intellectual, conscious decision to not kill, but it does affect the instinctive one.
I see. I lost the "instinctive" one long ago, and I have no plans to ever kill anyone. I'm against violence, in fact.
If a person's intellectual inhibition then falls because they become extremely agitated to the point of irrationality, or because they are socialized to regard some group of people as not fully human (commonly used in times of war), then they will be capable of killing.
And, judging from the amount of people that view/play violent entertainment, this does not appear to happen often (the killing), if at all (if it happens, there's no real evidence for it). So, as far as I see, either it doesn't desensitize very many people, or they just aren't 'insane' enough to kill other people merely because they would be more calm about it.
I suppose if you're going by the first definition, it would make sense. You should clarify that you are, though.
The main point in the article, is how almost none of the few published papers by the people signing to "video games don't cause violence" brief were published in respectable psychological journals.
But did they even look at the actual studies to determine if any of them were valid? What's the point of this? The fact that they aren't published in "respectable psychological journals" does not alone prove them wrong or warrant doubting them without even seeing them.
So unless you can do proper science that disproves that video games are a risk factor for agression
I'm not too worried about aggression, especially if it's temporary, as many of the studies seem to imply.
Computer games I've seen so far luckily don't posses sufficient reality in them, expressions, sounds and smells.
Not to mention the ability to fool the player into believing that the people in them are real. That would be a pretty important factor, too.
Is liking violence perverse? Not if the majority of people enjoy it in some form or another
The answer to that is subjective. Whether or not a majority of people agree or disagree with something is irrelevant.
"video games aren't related to ANY violence at all!"
I can't speak for them, but I speculate that most of them probably mean that any 'normal' person wouldn't be so drastically effected by a video game that it would change them completely.
However, it can be easily shown that some video games are related to the release of endorphins and adrenaline, which is why they are "fun."
That almost never amounts to anything. Temporary aggressive thoughts, maybe. But given the amount of people who view/play violent entertainment, you'd think that more people would be violent. The effect is likely so miniscule that it doesn't do anything to the average person, even if they are children.
but it does add to the credibility of this idea.
It does? Only if the original studies were actually valid and truly proved what they were attempting to prove. I've seen none that actually link real-world violence to violent entertainment. Only temporary aggressive thoughts which almost never amount to anything.
They might desensitize people to some forms of violence (though I doubt many people would still be able to react normally in the face of such if it happened to them in real life). But what does it matter? That just means that they'd be more calm in said situation, not that they'd begin voluntarily participating in violence. I'd say it's a good thing if people react more calmly.
Also, a lot of people claiming something is true does not make it so. The validity of the studies must be questioned, as well as what the studies really prove, if anything. Many of them merely link violent entertainment to temporary aggressive thoughts, from what I've seen. Those aggressive thoughts likely disappear soon enough, and almost never amount to anything.
I don't have to "prove" it, it's obvious from the statements made by Nintendo and Sony, e.g. Peter Dille calls the rampant piracy sickening [gamasutra.com]. It's obvious just from looking at the torrent sites.
But how do you or they know how many there truly are? Did they scour the entire internet and find every single 'pirate', past and present?
If Other OS became a means to root the PS3, then it would not be long before custom Linux isos appeared whose express purpose was to install, root the box and install CFW.
I see. So everyone would just magically gain technical expertise. The average person doesn't even know how to install a crack, apparently.
I suggest you furnish yourself with a clue concerning what the threat meant.
I know what it meant. Rampant 'piracy' or not, it was an advertised feature that was used by some people, and it was removed. The people who used it should possibly be compensated for that. If they didn't want it, they should not have put it in, or they should have better secured it. It should be far, far too late after the customer bought it to decide to remove it. EULAs don't override the law, either. I think that there's something terribly wrong if corporations can, at any time, change their terms, and then remove advertised features present in their product from all customers.
If they don't like 'pirates', they should go after them individually like they would have to otherwise, not remove features for everyone because they're paranoid. The 'pirates' will just find a way around this, as well.
I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation.
Oh, right. Sorry. I'm just used to talking about the first amendment when someone mentions free speech. I don't really care what a lot of people think it means (especially if they leave out important details).
You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion.
"Established meaning"? The only "established meaning" that "freedom of speech" has is exactly what it implies: freedom of speech. That's what it says in the constitution, and, as far as the law is concerned, that is all that matters. That is what we know for a fact. If we go by that logic, the government (or someone) could merely say, "The first amendment doesn't protect opinions that criticize the government! That wasn't its established meaning!" They could create exceptions (which they've already done) even more easily than they can now.
Because threatening a person is not an expression of opinion
Opinions aren't the same thing as speech. Merely saying "freedom of speech" inherently includes all speech.
It does not cover threats, lies , etc.
Threats and lies are speech.
"I'm going to kill you."
That is definitely speech. The act of doing it is, of course, not speech, though.
Rampant piracy exists on the DS and PSP and the Wii isn't looking good either.
So you say. But, can you prove it?
It would harm end users too since if the money isn't there to make premium games
How? If hardly anyone uses OtherOS (or has the technical expertise to enable the hacks), then how could they possibly 'lose' significant portions of potential profit?
As for they should have better secured their system, well yeah, but now they are in this situation you think they should stand back and do nothing?
Since it is/was an advertised feature: yes. They won't ever stop 'pirates'. They will be there, OtherOS or not.
a feature used by a miniscule number of users
Yet there's rampant 'piracy' because of it? Taking things away and tricking customers is 'okay' as long as there's only a few of them?
You don't realize that the smarter people can snap off in case of emergency.
I personally wouldn't call an overly panicky person smart, but even if they were, that does not destroy the point I am attempting to make. The speech is not what hurts people. Human stupidity hurts people in these situations. The speech can't make them do anything. Indeed, I'd say the behavior is stupid, even if the individual is not, and any damage they cause is their own fault, and not the fault of mere words.
In the same fashion you do realize that at any point a country can elect a new Constituent assembly and shove the former Constitution to the bin?
Yes. But, until then, the current constitution is still in effect.
There are, despite your claims, several constant limits on free speech.
That doesn't imply that they are constitutional. It's just that some people decided they liked it, and those restrictions, despite not existing in the first amendment, were put in place.
if your free speech is causing undue and quantifiable damage to me
It is people that cause that damage, not speech. If someone chooses to act based on faulty information without even verifying it, then who is at fault? The speech didn't make them do anything.
It is not the speech that is dangerous. It is human stupidity. The willfulness of people to believe things without even verifying it. Speech is mere words. They alone can not do any harm. If people are stupid and do idiotic things based on that speech, then that is their own fault. They decide that for themselves.