Video Games Share Blame in Florida Murder Case 124
EH writes "Yet another article making the case that video games force young children to ruthlessly bludgeon people to death. Or at least a South Florida lawyer thinks so. 'Whatever happened [in JoLynn's death], it was not murder,' Thompson wrote in a news release. 'The American video industry must share the blame.' Articles like this make me so angry." I'm really getting sick of video games being used as the scapegoat for the evils of society. It's not like Nintendo is blamed everytime an Italian becomes a plumber.
Obligatory Quote (Score:5, Funny)
(Is that the right source? I know I've seen it elsewhere attributed differently.)
Not totally true (Score:2, Insightful)
With the current state of videogames it's likely to affect people to a certain degree. I'll reveal something embarassing to prove the point. I certainly felt like playing around with a lightsabre after playing Jedi Knight II (ok laughing break...stop now ok?). However it doesn't mean I'll take my gun after playing Quake 3 and just walk up and down the street, shooting anything that moves.
Actually why aren't tv's and movies banned yet? I certainly feel lik
Re:Not totally true (Score:1)
Here's an interview [horrorking.com] with King that seems to touch on this matter. There have also been numerous specials on various shows relating to Stephen King's book. I'm sure your local librarian would probably be able to point you to archived material, if you're interested. For that matter, just watched arch
Re:Not totally true (Score:2)
As an impressionable tween, I read The Bachman Books, a collection of novellas he wrote under that pseudonym. It included a gem of a story called "The Long Walk" -- one of my favorites to date. I won't get into the details (google it), but I'm surprised that it hasn't been implemented into today's reality/endurance TV genre yet.
Anyway, I said to myself, "Those pussies! Walking's easy!" Being reasonably fit, I set out that afternoon along the North Carolina coastline
Re:Obligatory Quote (Score:2, Funny)
Of course everyone knows "Super Mario Bros." is nothing but a bad drug trip.
well (Score:4, Funny)
I think that lawyers do a lot more harm than video games ever could. After all, anyone can get away with murder these days because there will always be some souless bastard who will do whatever he/she can to get you off and get themselves more money.
"Wow, murder 1! Even if I loose I'll be famous!"
Re:well (Score:1)
Re:well (Score:1)
Sorry about the caps, but reading that name and your blurb gave me flash backs from Boy scout outings. All sorts of madness: Like the time when a fat red head tried to beat up my friends father with a pipe... or the time . . . before I became an Eagle Scout...
Re:I don't want to be flamebait, but I'm sure I wi (Score:1)
BTW, we all caught it, but we also knew what he meant.
C'est~la~vie (Score:4, Insightful)
Before games, it was music, before that movies, before that certian books.
Of course, its also human nature to "pass the buck" or so it seems.
Re:C'est~la~America (Score:2, Insightful)
There have been always forces of evil trying to destroy anything good* in this country.
* conservative
Re:C'est~la~America (Score:1)
In fact, in Germany you can't find some games in the stores, but you have to know to ask for them (and be over 18)
Re:C'est~la~America (Score:2, Interesting)
In Germany they do that with everything, not only video games, this way they are trying to expose their youth (And the big difference is that they do not blame the game industry for their violence of the youth, rather the way they raise them and the idols that they look up to.
Yes. (Score:1)
Re:C'est~la~vie (Score:2)
What bothers me is how one-sided the arguments are. The media never seems to notice that games also teach children that guns kill. If a kid finds his dad's gun after playing GTA3, he KNOWS what will happen when he pulls the trigger.
This is the same media, though, that sensationalized high-school footbal injuries. "in the last six months, 7 kids have gone to the hospital after playing football. Is your kid in danger?"
Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:5, Interesting)
One other thing: I hear a lot about videogames training kids to be killers. Again, not gonna happen. While some videogame skills might transfer over to the real world, most don't. Nobody who plays Quake for 8 hours a day picks up any marksmanship skills at all, any more than playing Tetris prepares you for a job in mail-order packaging. Besides, anyone playing games obsessively will lack the physical fitness necessary in a combat environment. Videogames are for the most part designed to be unrealistic to a degree; apart from hardcore sim-heads, those kinds of games are seen as boring and don't sell. While small amounts of realism make a game fun (think Counterstrike), large amounts simply consist of players doing boring, repetitive things (just like in the real world). Games don't train anyone to be a killer.
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:5, Funny)
I could only hope that a Counterstrike player would try to shoot up the school. He'd probably miss most everyone since he doesn't have his trusty aimbot. Then he'd prolly bitch about the lag and call everyone fags. Once the guards show up, he'd complain that the teams are stacked. Then he'd run out into the open and start jumping like crazy while attempting to shoot the guards with his Deagle. Then, after the guards mow him down with bullets and he's laying there bleeding, he'll call them h4x0rs and inform them that he's gonna buy an AWP next time and 0wn them all!
:)
So, you see? Game players shooting up schools and businesses would make things sooo much easier on law enforcement officers. Hell, if the cops can wallhack, the guy won't stand a chance.
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:1)
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:1)
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why the typical argument (I play video games, and I've never killed people) fails. Most people who are going to kill are deeply disturbed. The argument is whether the video games bring out latent homocidal tendencies. Culture can have negative effects on people's behavior.
An extreme example: people saw the movie "Birth of a Nation." The majority liked it for the spectacle and the new cinematic techniques. However, others siezed on the racist content, the KKK re-formed, and lynchings and increasingly racist laws happened. That's an extreme example just to prove the point that culture can directly have a negative effect.
Another example is music. A number of individuals were encouraged to try drugs by hippie culture, which was defined by music. A number of individuals consciously modeled themselves after gangsta stereotypes after hearing gangsta rap, and lived a lifestyle that just doesn't have a place in the Great Society. (Similarly, I've listened to "Sgt. Pepper's" and "Straight Outta Compton", but I've never shot a policeman on acid (me, not the cop))
On the opposite end, obviously a lot of culture really is harmless.
But I don't think it's unreasonable to question culture's ability to influence events - and if it's unhealthy, to restrict it.
Flame away :)
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt
2. An individual is responsible for their own actions
Banning materials is a presumption of guilt - it denies them to those who would actually deal responsibly with them.
Blaming external forces rather than those taking the action absolves everyone of responsibility, as our actions are always motivated by outside forces.
The price of freedom is the risk that some will abuse freedom. If we really don't want it, let's just drop the pretense and welcome the dictatorship with open arms already.
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:2)
Agreed. Everything we do is in reaction to or influenced by our environment. It is how an individual handles that environment that determines whether they become a benefit to society or legal fodder.
I am sick and tired of people pinning responsibility on everything but themselves. That is the number one problem with our society today, IMO.
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:2)
I guess the question is, how much freedom are you willing to give up to reduce already very small the odds that you will be harmed by someone with a mental problem? How m
Re:Video games don't force people to do anything (Score:2)
No, that's why the argument that restricting media violence will decrease violent murders fails. A deeply disturbed person with latent homicidal tendencies can be set off by anything - that's why they're disturbed.
David 'Son of
People can't be crazy no more huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Violent video games don't kill people... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Violent video games don't kill people... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a quote from the article that I found significant:
"Mickey Mishne said his daughter had invited Lynch to stay at their home because she felt sorry for him."
First of all, why would a parent (either that of the girl OR the boy) let a teenaged boy and girl cohabitate? It's a recipe for uncomfortable situations at the least and teen pregnancy at the worst - admittedly, murder wouldn't have leapt into my head as a possibility.
Second, why did the girl feel sorry for him? Was it poor social skills, bad home environment or what? If it was the former, how would that translate to inviting the kid to be a "houseguest"? If it was the latter, wouldn't a call to child protective services (or whatever it's called in their area) be more appropriate?
Finally, I would note that the video game argument seems impossible to maintain here. This wasn't an act of revenge or similar like Columbine (where I still felt the relationship was bogus but maybe closer). This was an obviously disturbed individual who it sounds like entered a state of rage and acted out physically on that emotion - unfortunately, it happens all the time, even to full-grown adults who play ZERO video games.
The video game argument is being offered not in any attempt to help a young kid who may need psychiatric help. It's being offered in order to raise the profile of an attorney who has decided that he wants this to be his criminal defense niche. I expect that he'll propose this defense every time anyone under 30 commits a violent crime and has a history of playing video games.
Lawyers...Gotta love 'em.
not just defense niche (Score:2)
The thought that this girl's father might be willing to unleash this kid on someone else in order to open the door to benefitting from litigation is what sickens me the most. Four years, indeed. It may be that this critter can be rehabilitated, but the adult legal system is better equipped to deal with him than the juvenile system, if only because they can keep him long enough to treat and retrain him.
Are games a cause, or a symptom? (Score:3, Interesting)
You've got to ask yourself
Personally, I can't imagine ANYONE being influenced to actual violence through games, unless they had some underlying problem in the first place. In that case, surely it would be better to treat the problem, instead of blaming the game. Maybe people are too frightened of discovering the cause, lest it be themselves.
DeeK
Re:Are games a cause, or a symptom? (Score:2)
Re:Are games a cause, or a symptom? (Score:2)
1-part legal system, 1-part publicity (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't blame lawyers... they just use and interpret the law. Contact your lawmakers. They're the ones that make them. And since it's basically impossible to destroy all lawyers once and for all (like ridding humanity of violence), it's better to contact your lawmakers and get things done.
Having said that, though, this defense attorney, a "self-styled expert on the influence of violent video games on youths", sounds like he's using this case for his own self-righteous publicity.
Videogames sharing blame in murder case?!?!?! (Score:1)
Re:Videogames sharing blame in murder case?!?!?! (Score:1)
the most glaring example that comes to mind is the blaming game surrounding the tragedy at columbine several years back...if I recall correctly, the public (and specifically parents and politicians) bandied about claims of how artists like marilyn manson were responsible...how movies like the matrix were responsible...how violent video games were responsible.
it couldn't be the children, it couldn't be their familial envi
Think about it for a second. (Score:2)
Sitting in a theatre watching violent events take place on a screen is quite different than picking up a controller and commanding your on-screen persona to pick up a baseball bat and bludgeon a pedestrian to death in Grand Theft Auto. Hell, in most cases, you even get rewarded with cash in the game for doing this.
Sure, the downside to that is that the police start to chase you, but you have to kill more than a couple people first and yet still only have to dr
Idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
The other involes you staring intently at a screen and jabbing your fingers up and down. Maybe it's intense, but more like a roller coaster then armed combat... which is what football is designed to immitate.
Down with football! This devils-game is forcing our children to kill!
I say we get a new scapegoat... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, blame it all on spam. The enticing ads told him to do it!
I think this is a bandwagon everyone can jump on. Now if only we could put the right spin on it!
Re:I say we get a new scapegoat... (Score:1)
hardcore spammers.
Re:I say we get a new scapegoat... (Score:1)
SPAM! First it was a food, then a joke, then it became an irritation now, it claimed its first victim. Today a self-confessed geek, John Smith, rampaged through an office of an advertising known to use SPAM killing many of its worker and injuring many more. Mr Smith bludgeoned the worker to death using a PDA and a Hard Disk shouting obscenities about bandwidth hogging, hard disk swamping. The police had to resort to gunning him down as he refused to drop his weapons. It
woah! (Score:1)
Hahahahaha....CowboyNeal is the only
What happened to assuming responsability? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's not my fault I have lung cancer, the tabacco companies should have told me smoking is harmfull"
"It's not my fault I'm a drug addict, the dealer gave me crack for free and didn't tell me it's addictive"
"It's not my fault I killed this person, I saw it all in Doom, I swear!"
And the examples could go on ad infinitum. The fault always lies with someone else. In the worst case, I'm partly to blame, a minute part, and should not be punished for it. This sort of behaviour has deep implications on out lives and freedoms. On one side we have the government and big corporations trying to impose more and more severe limitations on everything we do (think DMCA, Patriot Act, etc) just because they can. On the other we have irresponsible individuals that through their defences are curtailing our freedoms even further by casting an unfavourable light on harmless things (eg. computer games).
And the worst of it all is that nobody is forcing anybody to raise their standards in this respect. As geeks we become enraged in those instances, but do we really do anything about it? Do we have the power to do anything?
You tell me. Please.
Re:What happened to assuming responsability? (Score:2)
Generally, I agree with you. But not completely, and not for the examples cited:
"It's not my fault I have lung cancer, the tabacco companies should have told me smoking is harmfull"
For decades, the tobacco companies DIDN'T say smoking was harmful. They did everything they could to deny it loudly and publically. So, folks who are 50 years old and dying of a hideously malignant cancer have a right to sue. Nowadays, though, the packages are labelled, it's common knowledge, and no teenager who's smoking s
Re:What happened to assuming responsability? (Score:4, Informative)
This one usually gets cited and laughed at, but what folks don't know is that the coffee in question was actually OBSCENELY hot, beyond the point of being safe because McDonalds likes to cut corners and keep an old pot of coffee around as long as they can by overheating it. Plus the suit was only for medical damages (to cover extensive skin grafts needed, not just a 'Oh, that hurt!' whine) and the jury are the ones who decided to inflate that to millions of dollars in order to punish McDonalds.
This is an important point, because that case is so often used to decry the legal system, even though the people using it are almost totally ignorant of the facts.
She was a 79 year old woman in the passenger side of the car, who opened the lid of the coffee to add cream (while the car was stationary) and spilled it, causing third degree (full-thickness) burns to 6% of her body, mostly in the genital and groin regions. It was shown during the trial that McDonald's had recieved more than 700 complaints about the temperature of their coffee within the proceeding ten years, that it was served well above industry standard temperatures, and that it was served a full 40 to 50 degrees above safe temperatures. McDonalds claimed that they needed to serve it that hot because people don't drink it until they arrive at their destination, but during trial it was shown that they had performed studies indicating that the majority of people intended to consume it immediately after purchase. She also did not make "millions" off the case, as many claim; McDonalds settled the case with her, presumably for less than the $480,000 that the judge had reduced the jury's award to.
Ironically, well before it went to trial she had offered to settle her claim with them for $20,000 - but McDonald's refused.
Is desensitization real? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just wondering whether the theories hold up when measured against the experience of real people.
(*) or movies, or news shows, or crime dramas, etc. etc.
Mixed reality (Score:1)
After looking at the case, I'm not convinced that video games could cause such violence. The kid crushed the victim's skull and stabbed her multiple times, it's not like normal violence games has such genre. Even so, violence in games, no matter how real it is, is quite difference from real thing(real blood, intestine split). If one mixed the games elements into the reality he might have some other problem.
Some
Why dismiss the idea out of hand? (Score:2)
Re:Why dismiss the idea out of hand? (Score:2)
Probably because most of us play video games and are also non-violent (other than self-defense, of course; I doubt there are many true pacifists among the geek). Most of us also know a lot of people who play video games and have yet to see them turn aggressively violent.
Not counting the occasional grade school fight, every fight I've ever been witness to has been started by jocks or "trash" (of any skin color)... none of them seemed like the video-game playing type ;-)
Because if you examine the facts of the case... (Score:2)
The defendant's dad "is sure that game" had something to do with it.
At the same time, this kid was "afraid to go home", hence why he slept on the victims floor. Afraid to go home to the same parents who are now trying to shunt the blame away from them.
Sounds like a great family, eh?
Re:Why dismiss the idea out of hand? (Score:2)
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 bet
Actually, what's really bad... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Oh, and while I'm ranting: (Disclaimer: personally, I have no problem with the few French-Americans I've met) Did you know that France is the most policed nation?
OT as hell (Score:1)
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 pol
Had a thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet these computer games, we do exactly the same thing. Imagine 100 years from now if violence was removed from games. People will look back on the mindless violence we participate in in a similar way to how we perceive those who enjoyed gladiator sports.
Now you and I would argue that computer games don't accurately represent reality (but we're getting close), but more importantly we don't actually watch someone die - we just imagine it.
I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence. In small or large doses. Most here have probably participated in fights with friends - wrestling, etc, in a show of strength. To me, I think that violence is an innate part of our nature - whether we participate in reality or in computer games.
I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it. One can release their frustration in a less harmful manner through computer games. Without computer games, a person fosters thoughts of violence in their mind with no outlet.
Just a thought.
Re:Had a thought (Score:1)
This also explains the huge popularity of online gaming. It's not *just* violent video games, it's sports titles too. EA makes billions putting out the same sports games every year.
Re:Had a thought (Score:1)
Re:Had a thought (Score:1)
I have to also state that while video games can be used to relieve stress and anger by expressing it upon poor innocent polygons instead, it shouldn't be treated as a substitute for the real thing.
The true fact is that man is naturally aggressive and it is only society that takes it away from us. One should still find some physical outlet whether it's exercise, martial arts, or some other form of physical activity that involves competition, even if it's against yo
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
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.
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
Ahh, but will women act violently if no place is found to vent?
In my experiance, lashing out in physical violence is more a male attribute. It's just the nature of testosterone, which men have more off. There have been studies...
My fiance and I watch Jackie Chan all the time. She introduced me to many kung foo movies. We cool off when watching these movies, so we both feel emotionally relived.
We both feel the burn, but due to chemical dif
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
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 wome
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
I would bet that if we could devise an adequate study (eg, take a group of women who are as strong as a group of men for a few years and observe
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
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.
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
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, t
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
What I have discovered is that every single evolutionist I have ever encountered simply does not understand creationism. And considering that track record, I work from the assumption that you are no different. And for you to call me a moron is, in my eyes, setting yourself up for very deep embarr
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
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 evol
Re:Had a sexist thought (Score:2)
Now you call me a moron, now you take it bac
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
True, I said you were behaving in an ignorant, foolish manner - and I think you are. But that's plain to see from your posts - insulting me without proof, then demanding proof from me as if I started it all. You are the one who made the in
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
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
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
Your powers of deduction are very poor, I am neither a child nor 14. I also have thousands of pages of literature which explain why creationism is a better model, more rational and logic. I work in the field of IT. I am paid to think with a logical, reasonin
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
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 ha
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
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
Re:Boy are we off topic... (Score:2)
Answer this question: would you judge whether my car is any good without having seen it or driven it? I have not given you evidence for creationism. I'm not interested in arguing creation or evolution with you. For a simple reason: you treat me with no respect. I'm interested
Oh really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really? <sarcasm>What the hell was it then? A frag?</sarcasm>
Just because I played Super Mario x doesn't mean I go around jumping on other peoples pet turtles!
<soapbox>Murder is murder is murder. Unless you can honestly claim he was acting in self defense ("She was gonna get me with her BFG..."), then he committed murder and should be sentenced as such. Period. And IMHO, this lawyer should be struck off for trying to trivialise the actions of this person by insisting that videogames are to blame</soapbox>
Re:Oh really? (Score:1)
Essay quote (Score:4, Insightful)
I know I've already posted a comment on this story, but I just remembered something that's quite pertinant.
Remember Marilyn Mansons' essay [geocities.com] about the blame he was being landed with over the Columbine incident? The last paragraph says everything...
I know he's a bit of a dickhead at times, but he does make a very good point. (And yes, I do realise this case has nothing to do with guns...)
Yegads. (Score:3, Interesting)
What the hell kind of parent is that?
You think this lawyer is a little whack... (Score:3, Informative)
He noted at some point that videogames moved fast in their evolution of control systems, then he said something like videogames cause violence in "real life". -Nothing to special here is there...
He then said that "If there weren't computer games there wouldn't be child pornography".
I was as stunned as you probably are now. =0
deja vu? (Score:3, Insightful)
A Different Approach (Score:2)
There are two different approaches to the Violence begets Violence argument, whether the violence is real or simulated:
1) Test the hypothesis that violent people tend to grav
Re:A Different Approach (Score:1)
Note that it implies that violence in video games may actually be a problem! A view most people here seem to find hard to accept.
Says that not everyone becomes more violent from playing games - but there are other effects, such as becoming fearful or obsessed with games.
Also interesting in terms of the effects on gender identity - talks about how much violence is sexually oriented or male-on-female.
A victim mentality - blaming the game for the crime - is not right, but
Man, (Score:2)
so evil.
Not again...the /. bias (Score:1)
I know...a bit of a rhetorical question. Everyone is defensive of THEIR hobby and are secretly afraid they have been screwed up somehow. 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? Yes, these types of lawsuits are crazy b
Re:Not again...the /. bias (Score:1)
Seeing Realistic CG characters blow up on your computer screen is far different than gutting someone and listening to them scream and plead, staring into your eyes as they die. If you are so desensitized that you can go through with something like that, there's something other than 'the media' at work.
Feeding the troll again... (Score:1)
I will happily acknowledge that some people can be driven over the edge by stimuli--Ted Bundy's claims that the availability of/his addiction to porn was a major factor in his crimes, etc. However, I know from experience (having worked as a bouncer in college) that despit
Re:Not again...the /. bias (Score:2)
You do concede the point that parents should be more responsible, but they should hold themselves responsible, rather than pointing fingers at any/everybody else.
Intelligence (Score:2)
Very little.
In fact, its mostly retards who think like that.
Re:Not again...the /. bias (Score:2)
You figured us out...we are scarred to death that because of violent games, we ourselves are more likely to kill someone over a friggin' cookie. We all will one day go on a 'killing spree' and you will see thousands of over-weight, out-of-shape, pale skined, homicidal manics running around yelling "Damn Lag!" and "You stole my kill!"
Do not mix cause and effect here.... (Score:1)
If gay video games caused normal people to turn gay I'd see a pattern here but there isn't.
People with violent propensities play violent video games because they like the violence in the first place. Wether they would act out in real life is irrelevant.
The ones that are allowed to play excessively (16 hours a day) are unstable and their parents should be blamed for not giving them a balanced life. They are the ones th
Yes, yes, so knee-jerk (Score:2, Interesting)
But have any of you stopped to wonder why it is that video games are often so violent?
Sure, tension is a good element to a storyline or scene, and games fall along those lines like a short comic book or a single action sequence in a movie, but the majority of videogames involve beating, maiming, and killing (from cartoony to graphicaly unpleasant) as their main acti
Why is such violent stuff popular? (Score:2)
Games have to give you something that you don't see everyday, or give you the chance to be something that you're not. That's why computer adaptation of board games suck (unless you're playing online... see there it is!)
Usually this involves being strong enough to maim someone with your bare hands, or the ability to run real fast away from an explosion. I mean, how cool is that!
Re:Yes, yes, so knee-jerk (Score:2)
Too often this question is asked and every time no one likes the answer
Human Nature. Humans have a genetic trait of self destruction, since the beginning of time humans have killed other humans.
You can not blame video games on Cain killing his brother Able, in the Bible.
God did not flood the world to kill off everyone because they were playing too much Quake.
Jesus wasn't put on the cross to die slowly because he had
Re:Yes, yes, so knee-jerk (Score:2)
What percentage of time do you spend in your day being violent? What percentage of time do video game experiences spend on violence? I would guess the percentages are something like 0.5% and 80%.
Alternatively, look at other forms of entertainment, be they books, movies, tv shows, theatre, etc. Sure, people complain about movies and tv being violent, but it isn't anything like the 80% of the time that vi
Videogames and this issue (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure many so-called conservatives will love the whole "video game violence" drove him to do it thing. However, they should think about something. This defense is being used to try to get
RTFA (Score:1)
SiO2
Here's a thought (Score:2)
As a side note... What is preventing Al-Quede from purchasing an XBox and these "training" games? Wonder if they have a position on that issue.
All you need is love. (Score:2)
days, as there has been for countless decades. It's been the
overriding theme in popular music. Yet, I don't see everyone
falling in love with each other.
Adolescence is key here (Score:1)
Seduction of the Innocents/Attack on Comic Books (Score:1)
As we can see here (Score:2)
BWAHAHAHA! (Score:2)
That's gotta be the most politically incorrect thing I've ever seen posted on the front page of /.
Frigging hillarious...
Before video games, it was rock music. (Score:2)
Before comic books, it was the Beatles.
Before the Beatles, it was Chuck Berry.
Before that, well, was World War 2 and the Baby Boomers, and the number of young with disposable income was low, and therefore if they weren't well-off already they were working (boys) or pregnant (girls) and both married before 20ish. (Yes, this is semi U.S. centric. If anyone has information about youth having disposable income AND free time before that elsewhere it would be good