you lose points for not knowing that there is indeed a Playstation "2.5" coming out (it's just being called Playstation 2) that is going to replace the old model.
I think the program directors argument should qualm any skeptics.
"Some of them grilled us pretty heavily on the concept of, 'Well, aren't you training hackers?' " he said. "I go, yeah. I have a black belt in martial arts."
And then he opens up a can of serious whup ass and shuts them up! : )
Mine just started giving me "error reading disk" messages when I try to watch a DVD I've watched tons of times on it...
I'm wondering if Sony is pulling a "Radio Shack" on us (products that crap out exactly one day after the warranty runs out). I paid good money for that damn machine! I want it to last dammit!
Games still play fine though, but it looks like I'll need to buy a "real" dvd player : (
I'm 17 [...] I played a Ferrari racing game in an arcade yesterday, and 10 minutes later I was in my car peeling out at red lights and red-lining in every gear.
yup, you're 17 allright. There's a reason why car insurance cost more for 17 year olds...
Don't worry, if you survive you first crash, you'll learn to slow down and be more carefull...I did.
Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior
Yes I can. The reasoning goes like this: Was there violent behaviour before videogames? Yes? Then videogames are not the cause of the violence. Pretty simple. : )
I also have thousands of pages of literature which explain why creationism is a better model, more rational and logic.
Shoulda picked up on that in the first post, but here goes:
I have not read thousands of pages wich "explain why evolution is a better model, more rational and logic". I studied biology. It was not a class called "Creationism VS evolution: Why the morons are wrong", it was a class about living things. It described them, went to great lenghts about the diferent organs and what they do. It wasn't rethoric, it was science. There was one page in there about creationism. just to mention what people believed before scientific progress provided better explainations, that's all.
You have read thousands of pages of lies, half truths and craptacular logic holes. I also read a bunch of crackpot ramblings about how illogical evolution is, and there is allways a giant flaw at the basis of the whole argument. You, obviously, just gobbled it all up without ever noticing the errors.
Listen good, evolution is the only logical explanation to all the observations made in nature. If you have an open mind, and you look at all the life out there, at the sedimentary layers, you see that life started simple, and over time became more and more complex. the most commonly accepted theory to explain that is the Darwinian natural selection model. The model is up to debate, but the observed phenomena is not.
If you disagree with the model, fine, that's good, that's what science is all about: Challenging the model, perfecting it, coming up with better explanations and more reliable predictions.
However, if you deny the observed phenomena, you are being irrational.
When I made the comment about violence, I did not mention evolution, I mentioned natural selection. then you did not say that you didn,t believe in natural selection, you said you didn't believe in evolution. Natural selection is a theory, evolution is a fact.
You say you work in IT. that's supposed to convince me you're intelligent? I also worked in IT, and had tremendously stupid colleages (they too would argue that their views "contrary to popular belief" were the right ones, and they too would refuse to bring proof of their claims. One guy claimed that the Queen of england wasn't rich because when she died someone else would get the crown, another argued that Lucas only adapted SW to the big screen and that it was someone else's story).
I also refrained from debating the testoterone thing because, since you're obviously irrational, you won't be able to cope with the simple fact that with more testosterone comes more muscles, and so the whole point is moot.
Well, my yearly berating of the creationist is done. Same as allways, although the Galileo thing was a nice, funny surprise.
Take for example when Galileo proposed the (previously mentioned) model of the earth revolving around the sun. Contrary to popular belief, the church was not particularly strong against the idea.
Bwahahahaha!
He was fucking excommunicated you moron!
He was SENT TO HELL, and was only allowed to live because he was forced to retract his blasphemous theories.
Contrary to popular belief...jeez, you retard creationists are all the same, spewing false claims strewn together with faulty logic, wanting so very hard to be taken seriously despite it all. This is why I called you a moron and would not continue the discussion on feminine violence with you. Stating your creationist viewpoint indicates that you are going to use invalid arguments and will hold on to them with the awsome power of your faith no matter how much proof to the contrary is presented to you.
Creationism is not science. It is not based on observation, experimentation, or any other tool of science. It is a faith, an irrational belief. You're free to believe it, but stop trying to pass it off as something that it is not.
Remember, you started by calling me a moron - but giving no evidence why.
Yes, I gave evidence. The full statement was
I don't actually believe in evolution
I'll take that as proof that you're a moron.
Because not believing in evolution is right up there with not believing that a heavier-than-air flying machine is possible, or not believing in the platypuss, or in meteorites. All those things, including evolution, have been said to be impossible, and have then been proven. It takes a moron to disbelieve them now.
I offered you the chance to actually make good witth your wild claims of "logical creationism", and you refuse. Of course, you don't want to embarass yourself by presenting your silly bible spewings.
Back to the disrespectfull stance:
you present the evidence. If you are so certain I am a moron - or that what I believe is moronic, then you prove it.
Listen bud, I have on my lap a college biology text book 1186 pages think, chock full of proof of evolution. You are clearly immature, I'm guessing you are no older than 14yrs old, and you are in the nasty habit of claiming you have a rationale to your position but cannot explain it. I'm not going to give you a cliff's notes version of that book because I do not believe you are mentaly capable of understanding any of it, and because I studied it for a year, and a slashdot post is not enough to explain it all. The burden of proof is on you, you who contradicts the entire scientific community, you who "don't actually believe" 150 years worth of scientific reasearch. You might not be a moron, you might simply be undereducated, wichever it is, you are not as smart as you think you are.
You did not give me your definition of "evolution", you did not give me your version of creationism. Its pretty clear that:
You do not even know what you mean when you say "evolution".
Your creationism stories are so convoluted that you need to have long, drawn out discussions to explain them. Conversations that give you ample room to hide the glaring holes in your logic that you need to have to sustain a steady disbelief of actuall scientific evidence, as opposed to your "thought about it a lot" rationalisations.
Now, I'll give you someone else's proof of evolution, and leave it at that.
I called you a moron, you said you werent. I gave you a chance to prove me wrong, you couldn't do it. To me, you, and every other creationist, is a moron, or an idiot, or whatever term I feel like using to convey my low opinion of their intelectual abilities. No, I don't think that all opinions are equal. Stupid opinions are not as valid as informed, rational opinions.
You don't need to reply to this, although you will out of a childish need to have the last word, because I don't care anymore. You had your chance to talk like a grownup, and you passed on it. Buh-bye now.
When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me.
Yes, towards you. I do feel arrogance, because you're so...emotionally involved with this whole thing. And you talk about logic, but do not demonstrate any logic. I'm still waiting for your actual views, all you give me is your feelings about your views. Stop telling me how much people not sharing your views hurt your feelings and show me your wonderfull creationist insights already.
I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense
Define "evolution". You obviously have some kind of special meaning for the word, why not clear it up?
Here's the relevant part of the definition given by Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"
I've studied biology, we had classes that compared organs of primitive life forms with the more advanced corresponding organs of superior life forms. The whole thing was very convincing. Now its your turn.
That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom.
Well, you're very, very wrong. Wisdom is my friend.
If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen.
Notice how you've not even tried to explain your view? You just claim its logical and well thought out, but you don't actually explain or demonstrate anything...yet.
And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.
Well, I've read many creation myths, heard others. Calling those stories "models" instead of "myths" doesn't change them, its just meant to make them sound more respectable. I'm not impressed by name calling, unlike say, you. You call me arrogant, you call me ignorant, a fool, and I don't really mind. Go on, tell me your creationist "model". I can tell from your bible quote that you work within the Judeo-Christian model, so I don't expect Vishnu to play a significant role in it...I'm still a bit curious though. So, please, if you will, tell me about your "creation of life Model".
Keep in mind though, that while I'll refrain from childish name calling, I will be critical of your views if they are flawed.
Jeez that really got to you...ok listen, I was just trolling you, I don't know you, so I take it back, you're not a moron. Now breathe deep, if you get this worked up everytime you get trolled you'll get a heart attack soon.
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism
What's to understand? Magic being said "let there be life" and *poof!*, life! Ooooo! Magic!
Creationists do not understand evolution. Hell, even a lot of "evolutionists" as you call them don't understand evolution. Its a complex thing, after all.
the creation model
There is no creation model, there are just creations myths. A whole bunch of 'em, and they tend to contradict themselves pretty bad. So, did Yavhe create life or was it Brahma? Or maybbe life was created when Chronos chopped the sky's privates off? Sneezed out of the giant space goat maybe?
I'm only guessing here - but imagine if I blamed evolutionists for a moronic theory when I'd only ever argued about it with those who said that, for example, a monkey if it loses it's tail in a fight will have children with no tails.
Hey, even Lamarck would have said that the monkey would only have had a shorter tail...
You can take it as proof of whatever you want. It won't change facts.
Facts?
My opinion of you instantly dropped to below 0, since you are unable to comprehend that something you believe may be wrong, and as a result you blame me for your own failings.
Hehe, the moron strikes again.
Listen, bub, evolution is not a matter of belief, unlike Shiva or the holy trinity. Its a scientific fact, and if you refuse proven principles, I reserve the right to call you a moron, and to disregard your opinions.
Now, there are things I believe that might be wrong, like I believe that sept11 was a ploy by elements inside the US government to help them accomplish their dark agendas. I might be wrong on that, maybe it really was Al Quaeda, but I have no proof either way (and no, the fact that one of the suspects says its got secret proof that the other did it is not proof). As for evolution, I have proof, lots of proof, and those proofs are freely available to anyone, including you, and if you reject them without cause, then you are, in fact a moron.
Sure, its name calling, its a bit immature, but you can only argue with irrational creationist for so long before you realise how moronic their arguments are, and the name calling is just a byproduct of that.
He may have even been more rewarded than a woman would be because he is bigger, stronger, scarrier looking. It requires less skill from a man for an outburst to have a reward.
Yes, therein lies the difference.
Men and women, being both the results of billions of years of survival of the fittest, are equally prone to violence. Violence being how most things are settled in nature (even the slow violence of trees hogging the sunlight).
But, men are bigger and stronger, and so, in a fight, will win. Most women know they can't take a guy in a fight, and so don't often bother trying. Guys, however, know they can, and so don't need to repress their violence as much.
I don't dispute the facts, more men act violently then women. But its not because men are, in their core being, more violent. It is because men are more capable of violence. If women were bigger then men, they would be the more violent ones, and if we were all the same size, we would be equally violent (or perhaps, less so, since overpowering someone is an important aspect of violence).
...is when the terrorists (don't groan, keep reading) attack our nation (I'm from the USA) for being so free and giving our citizens so many rights
Stop spewing propaganda. The terrorist bombed you because you bombed them first.
When your whole family is killed by a bomb and the shrapnell has "Made in U.S.A" written all over it, you tend to get a little bit, lets say, annoyed at the country in question.
you know that France is the most policed nation?
Well, I dunno about "most", but I know its pretty policed awright. Of course, they have been dealing with terrorist since long before september 2001.
Nearly all the posts so far in this thread seem to be of the form "Games can't promote violence, because that would just be TOTALLY UNTRUE." There is probably not much evidence for a link, but why refuse to even consider any data?
Because we have overwhelming data allready.
All us geeks. We all play violent videogames, and very few of us bash people's skulls in. If there really was a cause and effect reaction, we would know it, we would see it in ourselves, in our friends, our coworkers. Hell! The paid beta testers of violent games would surely all turn into bloodthirsty maniacs! Think about it, playing it all day, every day, for weeks...the expression would be "going tester" instead of "going postal".
Slashdot Mirror
you lose points for not knowing that there is indeed a Playstation "2.5" coming out (it's just being called Playstation 2) that is going to replace the old model.
Oh yeaaaaaah...forgot about that one.
And you sound like a marketing rep : )
love everything about my XBOX, especially the warning in the manual against letting it fall and maiming small children ^_^
Be mindfull of your cat too, young Padowan.
I think the program directors argument should qualm any skeptics.
"Some of them grilled us pretty heavily on the concept of, 'Well, aren't you training hackers?' " he said. "I go, yeah. I have a black belt in martial arts."
And then he opens up a can of serious whup ass and shuts them up!
: )
Hehehe, take THAT skeptics!
my PS2 burned out from overuse
Mine just started giving me "error reading disk" messages when I try to watch a DVD I've watched tons of times on it...
I'm wondering if Sony is pulling a "Radio Shack" on us (products that crap out exactly one day after the warranty runs out). I paid good money for that damn machine! I want it to last dammit!
Games still play fine though, but it looks like I'll need to buy a "real" dvd player : (
Actually, Sony isn't really releasing a playstation 2.5, they're releasing a PVR-DVD combo with PS2 compatibility.
And Nintendo was the first to do the "1.5" with the Panasonic DVD player/gamecube.
So shut up, fanboy : )
The current Xboxes are bigger than most Tokyo appartments! Of course they aren't selling in Japan!
: )
But there was funny before the Simpsons- Does that make the Simpsons not the cause of funny?
The Simpsons are the vehicle of funny...its avatar if you will.
People falling down flat on their faces was the cause of funny : )
Yeah, and we can't have retail clerks having to THINK!
Do the words "You're not paid to think" ring a bell?
They can't have a law like that give funny ideas to their register-drones...
I'm 17 [...] I played a Ferrari racing game in an arcade yesterday, and 10 minutes later I was in my car peeling out at red lights and red-lining in every gear.
yup, you're 17 allright.
There's a reason why car insurance cost more for 17 year olds...
Don't worry, if you survive you first crash, you'll learn to slow down and be more carefull...I did.
it appears that Judge Limbaugh doesn't know what he is talking out.
;- )
He's a Limbaugh, what did you expect?
when I accidentially step on a snail, I get bummed out.
Of course you do! You just wasted a prefectly delicious entrée!
Hmmm...snail
Neither can you say with 100% certainty that violent games do not cause violent behavior
Yes I can.
The reasoning goes like this: Was there violent behaviour before videogames? Yes? Then videogames are not the cause of the violence. Pretty simple. : )
I also have thousands of pages of literature which explain why creationism is a better model, more rational and logic.
Shoulda picked up on that in the first post, but here goes:
I have not read thousands of pages wich "explain why evolution is a better model, more rational and logic". I studied biology. It was not a class called "Creationism VS evolution: Why the morons are wrong", it was a class about living things. It described them, went to great lenghts about the diferent organs and what they do. It wasn't rethoric, it was science. There was one page in there about creationism. just to mention what people believed before scientific progress provided better explainations, that's all.
You have read thousands of pages of lies, half truths and craptacular logic holes. I also read a bunch of crackpot ramblings about how illogical evolution is, and there is allways a giant flaw at the basis of the whole argument. You, obviously, just gobbled it all up without ever noticing the errors.
Listen good, evolution is the only logical explanation to all the observations made in nature. If you have an open mind, and you look at all the life out there, at the sedimentary layers, you see that life started simple, and over time became more and more complex. the most commonly accepted theory to explain that is the Darwinian natural selection model. The model is up to debate, but the observed phenomena is not.
If you disagree with the model, fine, that's good, that's what science is all about: Challenging the model, perfecting it, coming up with better explanations and more reliable predictions.
However, if you deny the observed phenomena, you are being irrational.
When I made the comment about violence, I did not mention evolution, I mentioned natural selection. then you did not say that you didn,t believe in natural selection, you said you didn't believe in evolution. Natural selection is a theory, evolution is a fact.
You say you work in IT. that's supposed to convince me you're intelligent? I also worked in IT, and had tremendously stupid colleages (they too would argue that their views "contrary to popular belief" were the right ones, and they too would refuse to bring proof of their claims. One guy claimed that the Queen of england wasn't rich because when she died someone else would get the crown, another argued that Lucas only adapted SW to the big screen and that it was someone else's story).
I also refrained from debating the testoterone thing because, since you're obviously irrational, you won't be able to cope with the simple fact that with more testosterone comes more muscles, and so the whole point is moot.
Well, my yearly berating of the creationist is done.
Same as allways, although the Galileo thing was a nice, funny surprise.
Take for example when Galileo proposed the (previously mentioned) model of the earth revolving around the sun. Contrary to popular belief, the church was not particularly strong against the idea.
Bwahahahaha!
He was fucking excommunicated you moron!
He was SENT TO HELL, and was only allowed to live because he was forced to retract his blasphemous theories.
Contrary to popular belief...jeez, you retard creationists are all the same, spewing false claims strewn together with faulty logic, wanting so very hard to be taken seriously despite it all. This is why I called you a moron and would not continue the discussion on feminine violence with you. Stating your creationist viewpoint indicates that you are going to use invalid arguments and will hold on to them with the awsome power of your faith no matter how much proof to the contrary is presented to you.
Creationism is not science. It is not based on observation, experimentation, or any other tool of science. It is a faith, an irrational belief. You're free to believe it, but stop trying to pass it off as something that it is not.
I am neither a child nor 14
But you sound and think like one.
Yes, I gave evidence. The full statement was
Because not believing in evolution is right up there with not believing that a heavier-than-air flying machine is possible, or not believing in the platypuss, or in meteorites. All those things, including evolution, have been said to be impossible, and have then been proven. It takes a moron to disbelieve them now.
I offered you the chance to actually make good witth your wild claims of "logical creationism", and you refuse. Of course, you don't want to embarass yourself by presenting your silly bible spewings.
Back to the disrespectfull stance:
you present the evidence. If you are so certain I am a moron - or that what I believe is moronic, then you prove it.
Listen bud, I have on my lap a college biology text book 1186 pages think, chock full of proof of evolution. You are clearly immature, I'm guessing you are no older than 14yrs old, and you are in the nasty habit of claiming you have a rationale to your position but cannot explain it. I'm not going to give you a cliff's notes version of that book because I do not believe you are mentaly capable of understanding any of it, and because I studied it for a year, and a slashdot post is not enough to explain it all. The burden of proof is on you, you who contradicts the entire scientific community, you who "don't actually believe" 150 years worth of scientific reasearch. You might not be a moron, you might simply be undereducated, wichever it is, you are not as smart as you think you are.
You did not give me your definition of "evolution", you did not give me your version of creationism. Its pretty clear that:
Now, I'll give you someone else's proof of evolution, and leave it at that.
I called you a moron, you said you werent. I gave you a chance to prove me wrong, you couldn't do it. To me, you, and every other creationist, is a moron, or an idiot, or whatever term I feel like using to convey my low opinion of their intelectual abilities. No, I don't think that all opinions are equal. Stupid opinions are not as valid as informed, rational opinions.
You don't need to reply to this, although you will out of a childish need to have the last word, because I don't care anymore. You had your chance to talk like a grownup, and you passed on it. Buh-bye now.
When you talk to people, do you see yourself as a person of understanding, or as an arrogant arsehole? Because you come off as the latter towards me.
Yes, towards you.
I do feel arrogance, because you're so...emotionally involved with this whole thing. And you talk about logic, but do not demonstrate any logic. I'm still waiting for your actual views, all you give me is your feelings about your views. Stop telling me how much people not sharing your views hurt your feelings and show me your wonderfull creationist insights already.
I think evolution is a load of unbelievable nonsense
Define "evolution".
You obviously have some kind of special meaning for the word, why not clear it up?
Here's the relevant part of the definition given by Webster: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations"
I've studied biology, we had classes that compared organs of primitive life forms with the more advanced corresponding organs of superior life forms. The whole thing was very convincing. Now its your turn.
That's how I feel about you, despising wisdom.
Well, you're very, very wrong. Wisdom is my friend.
If I were to show you how creationism is logical, and how our criticisms are real, logical, and scientific, I'll bet you wouldn't listen.
Notice how you've not even tried to explain your view? You just claim its logical and well thought out, but you don't actually explain or demonstrate anything...yet.
And you have the nerve and arrogance to call a model a story of magic of which you have no idea, not even an incling of understanding.
Well, I've read many creation myths, heard others. Calling those stories "models" instead of "myths" doesn't change them, its just meant to make them sound more respectable. I'm not impressed by name calling, unlike say, you. You call me arrogant, you call me ignorant, a fool, and I don't really mind. Go on, tell me your creationist "model".
I can tell from your bible quote that you work within the Judeo-Christian model, so I don't expect Vishnu to play a significant role in it...I'm still a bit curious though. So, please, if you will, tell me about your "creation of life Model".
Keep in mind though, that while I'll refrain from childish name calling, I will be critical of your views if they are flawed.
Hey, we hate spammers of all colours! Our hatred spans all races, creeds and sexual orientation.
PS Die spammers die
you have no right to call me a moron
Jeez that really got to you...ok listen, I was just trolling you, I don't know you, so I take it back, you're not a moron. Now breathe deep, if you get this worked up everytime you get trolled you'll get a heart attack soon.
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism
What's to understand? Magic being said "let there be life" and *poof!*, life! Ooooo! Magic!
Creationists do not understand evolution. Hell, even a lot of "evolutionists" as you call them don't understand evolution.
Its a complex thing, after all.
the creation model
There is no creation model, there are just creations myths. A whole bunch of 'em, and they tend to contradict themselves pretty bad.
So, did Yavhe create life or was it Brahma? Or maybbe life was created when Chronos chopped the sky's privates off?
Sneezed out of the giant space goat maybe?
I'm only guessing here - but imagine if I blamed evolutionists for a moronic theory when I'd only ever argued about it with those who said that, for example, a monkey if it loses it's tail in a fight will have children with no tails.
Hey, even Lamarck would have said that the monkey would only have had a shorter tail...
You can take it as proof of whatever you want. It won't change facts.
Facts?
My opinion of you instantly dropped to below 0, since you are unable to comprehend that something you believe may be wrong, and as a result you blame me for your own failings.
Hehe, the moron strikes again.
Listen, bub, evolution is not a matter of belief, unlike Shiva or the holy trinity. Its a scientific fact, and if you refuse proven principles, I reserve the right to call you a moron, and to disregard your opinions.
Now, there are things I believe that might be wrong, like I believe that sept11 was a ploy by elements inside the US government to help them accomplish their dark agendas. I might be wrong on that, maybe it really was Al Quaeda, but I have no proof either way (and no, the fact that one of the suspects says its got secret proof that the other did it is not proof). As for evolution, I have proof, lots of proof, and those proofs are freely available to anyone, including you, and if you reject them without cause, then you are, in fact a moron.
Sure, its name calling, its a bit immature, but you can only argue with irrational creationist for so long before you realise how moronic their arguments are, and the name calling is just a byproduct of that.
I don't actually believe in evolution
I'll take that as proof that you're a moron.
He may have even been more rewarded than a woman would be because he is bigger, stronger, scarrier looking. It requires less skill from a man for an outburst to have a reward.
Yes, therein lies the difference.
Men and women, being both the results of billions of years of survival of the fittest, are equally prone to violence. Violence being how most things are settled in nature (even the slow violence of trees hogging the sunlight).
But, men are bigger and stronger, and so, in a fight, will win.
Most women know they can't take a guy in a fight, and so don't often bother trying. Guys, however, know they can, and so don't need to repress their violence as much.
I don't dispute the facts, more men act violently then women. But its not because men are, in their core being, more violent. It is because men are more capable of violence.
If women were bigger then men, they would be the more violent ones, and if we were all the same size, we would be equally violent (or perhaps, less so, since overpowering someone is an important aspect of violence).
Come on, how much intelligence does it take to see that seeing very graphic, violent behavior day after day would desensitize you to that behavior?
Very little.
In fact, its mostly retards who think like that.
I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence.
Shut up, you sexist twit.
Women are no less capable of enjoying violence as men.
I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it.
Well, that's true. Its called catharsis.
...is when the terrorists (don't groan, keep reading) attack our nation (I'm from the USA) for being so free and giving our citizens so many rights
Stop spewing propaganda. The terrorist bombed you because you bombed them first.
When your whole family is killed by a bomb and the shrapnell has "Made in U.S.A" written all over it, you tend to get a little bit, lets say, annoyed at the country in question.
you know that France is the most policed nation?
Well, I dunno about "most", but I know its pretty policed awright. Of course, they have been dealing with terrorist since long before september 2001.
Nearly all the posts so far in this thread seem to be of the form "Games can't promote violence, because that would just be TOTALLY UNTRUE." There is probably not much evidence for a link, but why refuse to even consider any data?
Because we have overwhelming data allready.
All us geeks. We all play violent videogames, and very few of us bash people's skulls in. If there really was a cause and effect reaction, we would know it, we would see it in ourselves, in our friends, our coworkers.
Hell! The paid beta testers of violent games would surely all turn into bloodthirsty maniacs! Think about it, playing it all day, every day, for weeks...the expression would be "going tester" instead of "going postal".