Another Overhyped Weak Link Between Video Games And Violence

from the sounds-familiar dept

Tue, Jul 25th 2006 10:17am — Mike Masnick

qkslvr writes in with the latest academic research claiming to show the link between video games and violence. Amusingly, it claims this is the "first" study to prove video games desensitizes people to real-life violence. There are a few problems with this. First, it's not the first study to claim such a thing. Just seven months ago, we linked to a study that made nearly identical claims. And, second, it doesn't actually seem to prove that at all. Just like the last study, all it really showed is that (shockingly!), people get slightly (and perhaps temporarily) desensitized if they see two similar things in a row. If you see a lot of violence, seeing more violence isn't going to get your heart rate pumping nearly as much. That's not surprising at all. That's barely a finding worth reporting. That doesn't even remotely suggest that because your heart rate doesn't beat as fast, you're now going to run out and start attacking people. However, that doesn't stop the folks who did this study from spinning it into being a much bigger deal. They claim that seeing violence makes people "numb" to it, as if they don't care about violence they might participate in. Most people know the difference between real violence and fake violence on the screen. That's why youth violence keeps dropping as video game violence becomes more popular.

But, the researchers don't stop there. They want everyone to know that this is a big problem, claiming that violent media is "a powerful desensitization intervention on a global level." The researchers then go in for the (figurative!) kill: "It (marketing of video game media) initially is packaged in ways that are not too threatening, with cute cartoon-like characters, a total absence of blood and gore, and other features that make the overall experience a pleasant one. That arouses positive emotional reactions that are incongruent with normal negative reactions to violence. Older children consume increasingly threatening and realistic violence, but the increases are gradual and always in a way that is fun. In short, the modern entertainment media landscape could accurately be described as an effective systematic violence desensitization tool."

Unfortunately, their study shows none of that (and seems to paint video game marketing with an unfairly broad brush that doesn't seem particularly accurate). All it shows is that if you've been playing violent video games, immediately afterwards if you watch some violence on TV, it doesn't get your heart pumping nearly as much. They don't bother to look at how long this lasts. They don't bother to look at how it actually impacts how the person feels about violence... and they certainly don't look at how this makes the individual act. They don't bother to see how people would react to real violence happening in front of them (only TV violence from movies and TV shows). All they note is that the violence isn't as shocking. That's like saying if I was listening to loud music for a while and then put on more loud music, it wouldn't be as shocking as if I simply turned on loud music after listening to quiet music. There's nothing surprising, or even worrying there, but that doesn't stop the researchers from blowing it out of proportion in a way that will surely be misused by those with a political agenda.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

42 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:35am

I would rather my kid play violent video games than watch the evening news. Lots more real violence, with things the way they are today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NSMike, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:39am

WARNING
Eating more than one McDonald's french fry in succession desensitizes you to their taste. We must stop over-exposure to french fries or McDonalds could lose millions!

Please. Spare me the alarmist hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dennis, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:39am

Violent Video Games
It would seem to me that your heart rate would go down when you watch violence on TV after playing a violent video game. While playing the video game you are having to concentrate, anticipate scenarios, react to changes on teh screen, manipulate a controller, etc. Especially if you are a competitive person, playing any type of game will probably raise your heart rate. Watching a violent movie on TV won't do the same thing unless it scares you in some way. I have notice though, that if I watch a UFC event and really get into the action, I will tense up when my fighter is in trouble. Maybe they should analyse that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I, for one, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:40am

Meanwhile in reality...
"Marketing of war initially is packaged in ways that are not too threatening, with cute allusions to spreading "democracy" and precision bombing, a total absence of blood and gore, and other features that make the overall experience a patriotic one. That arouses positive emotional reactions that are incongruent with normal negative reactions to violence. Older adults consume increasingly disturbing and shameful propaganda, but the increases are gradual and always in a way that reinforces existing prejudices. In short, the modern news media landscape could accurately be described as an effective systematic violence desensitization tool."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rational Beaver, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:46am

Re: Violent Video Games
Good call Dennis. I wonder what a close Super Bowl game would do to a viewer's heartrate? I think that Football has desensitized America to the horror of fat men colliding on a field.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
s, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:47am

compare it to cultures without video games
I'd like to see a study compare a country's violence (who has video games) to a country's violence that does not have video games. Take a look at all these african nations and the middle east that lack video games and look at how many are off running suicide bombings, extorting global aid funds, and doing random killings and rapings.

I mean honestly, maybe we should take the funding from these 'studies' and use it to buy video games for needy nations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 10:49am

Re:
"I would rather my kid play violent video games than watch the evening news. Lots more real violence, with things the way they are today"

I bet they don't show you this on TV in the USA.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14069.htm

That's the easy stuff. I daren't post any of the *real* stuff up here
because it's not fair on Mike being forced to delete it and look bad for that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 25 Jul 2006 @ 11:16am

Re: Meanwhile in reality...
I agree with the last sentence but the rest verges
on claptrap.

Precision bombing is a fact. The old days of carpet
bombing and napalming are gone, hopefully forever.
War sucks, innocent people are killed along with the
not so innocent. I can't say if it was just or right
But it has been a different sort of war from anything
we've seen before.

It is the older people who have seen real violence,
at least those still alive have seen it. The most ardent
pacifists I know were soldiers.

It is the older people who know the game that are
generally best at discerning propaganda from truth.

With youth also comes inexperience (read ignorance)
which only time and painful experience will erase.

The violent crime statistics overwhelmingly tie
youth and violence together.

This is why the military recruits young people with
malleable minds, and also their good health.

Yes, there are stupid old people that believe whatever
they're told. Yes, there are old warmongers.

But youth has no lock on the truth. Often they're
ill equipped to even recognize it.

Finally...

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:05pm

Why do we need pointless studies that prove the ob
Why do we waste money on this kind of thing? Of course seeing and participating in violence desensitizes you to violence. That's true whether it is real or fake violence.
Why do we waste money proving obvious facts? What isn't clear is whether that desensitization has any connection to committing violent acts.
THAT is what should be studied. But no, that might prove the harmfulness/harmlessness of violent video games and movies. No one actually wants to see that data. The one side because it might prove that there is no harm in violent games, and the other because it might prove there is harm. Both sides would much rather point to these inconclusive studies and statistics to prove the opinion they want to push. Neither side wants to be proven wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:09pm

Re:
Too true, too true...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:19pm

Re: Re:
You also darent post any pics of the dead israeli civilians who have been killed over the many years of terrorism because that would present an opposing and equally graphic view which would in turn reduce the effectiveness of your shock propaganda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple Stater, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:20pm

Art imitates life, not the other way around.

There has been violence as long as there has been life. The greatest influence in a childs life is their parents. If a child is playing a violent game, watching a violent movie or TV show or watching violence on the news, the best thing for that child is for their parent to say "that's bad, don't do that for real." By not doing that or by simply laughing and calling for more, you may be telling that child that that sort of behavior is OK. Children's minds are like clay, tell them something is bad and they will believe it on some level if not completely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coe, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:29pm

The problem is...
The real issue with these "studies" is that they originate from an unproven assumption: that desensitation to violence innevitably leads to the desire to create violence.

Personally, I would find desensitation to violence to be an advantage in life. Perhaps it will allow me to react sensibly in a violent situation as opposed to just having a panic attack?

But then, phsychology has always been a non-science, hasn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:30pm

Re: Re: Meanwhile in reality...
There's no way you could agree with any part of that and not the whole sentiment so I call you a liar. Fortunately I didn't write it, I merely changed the words to make a joke out of the insane rantings of the fool denigrating video game violence. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. That random mindless bloodshed is a good thing? If so we have nothing to debate. Of course I fundamentally disagree with your implication that precision bombing is a catch all excuse for using bombs on civillian neighborhoods in the first place.

Precison bombing is no more of a "fact" than anti-dandruff shampoo is a "fact". It is a meaningless military hocum. Bombs got more accurate because of satellite tech, they still need aiming, you still need to pick targets. So what bothers me is this... given the accuracy to hit a target within a meter how does one account for the wholsale slaughter of civillians by US or Isreali forces? Bad luck? The wrong kind of weather? Personally I'd say bumbling amateur incompetence is letting them off lightly (I mean look at all the friendly fire deaths - you can hardly call American soldiers "skilled" can you. Ask any British or Canadian squadies if they'd rather have an impossible enemy in front of them, or the Americans behind them.). But that's being kind, it would be easy to blame it on the substandard bombs or the rookie soldiers, a more cynical mind would just say they are ordered to do it on purpose. Once is a mistake, twice is suspicious, but over and over again US and Isreali forces manage to slaughter reporters, tourists, families at weddings, kids at school - it's so far beyond a joke I hope nobody would make a fool of themself trying to defend or deny that.

Basically Americans are not "fighters", they are full of puff and shouting and "kick your ass" bigtalk, but at the end of the day they rely on technology to do their dirty work, and when that fails, they fail. Read some of the things those kids over there say. They hate it. They know the war is a lie. They are sick and scarred and frightened and will spend the rest of their days on drugs and alcohol.

Making an empty statement like "war sucks" and then following up with a vacuous platitude that dodges any moral responsibility makes you a coward in my opinion. Yes, you do know whether it is "just" or "right", you just can't hear your own heart speaking, and pretending otherwise does not absolve you.

Yes, you're right about one thing, coming from 5 generations of serving military family I am an ardent pacifist, people who have heard as much of the bullshit and had to live with the consequences of it like myself speak with qualification.

And I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that age visits some magical ability to separate lies from truth. If anything the older people get the more insecure and fearful they are and hence the more quickly they are taken in by fearmongers. I never see the youth shouting "lets go to war", do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
Reducing the effectiveness of your shock propaganda ironically, I might add, by desensitization to violence. It is not good for a person to be persuaded by an ethical argument consisting of bloody photographs. Seeing enough of them might weaken the argument. See that dead dude? He was standing next to a dead terrorist. Maybe he was even the terrorist himself. What kind of weak-minded morons are you hoping to convince through bloody pics, anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
48sicks, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:32pm

let's extrapolate this to its (il)logical conclusi
So...cute animals, etc., in some games. Leads to future use of more violent games.

Well I guess we better ban books then, because I remember reading cute animal books when I was little, and now I read more violent books.
-------------------
Let's see, now, we need to make sure that no one is allowed to read, watch television or movies, or have internet access, because there is sex and violence present in some examples of all of those media.

All right, back to work! Everyone needs to work to be a productive member of society. It's a good thing we have so many illiterates to hire. They can help clean up all the messes caused by the workers we already have, who, you see, are unable to reason for themselves. This was proven by VIDEO GAMES, ok? No, WE can reason perfectly well! It's video games.

Oh wait, we can't allow them to work. It's been shown that work makes people violent. They might come in and shoot up the place. Sports also make people violent.

We've now overruled work, entertainment, and sports. We'll have to keep them occupied some other way. And provide food and shelter, since they won't be able to pay for them. We'll need to keep them completely inactive.

They're becoming a drain on our resources. There must be some way we can utilize them, so they can contribute to the maintenance costs. Oh, I know! Let's put them in pods, and use them to power our machines!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Q, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:37pm

This just in...
Reports like this desensitize rational people to bullshit studies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile in reality...
To be fair, your last piece of evidence--that at least some of us never see the youth shouting "lets go to war" supports both your conclusion that the old people are shouting it because theyre insecure and fearful and taken in by fearmongers, and the one you were arguing against--that the kids are stupid--depending on whether you think the sentiment of going to war is stupid. So it just boils down to a repeated insistence that war is stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brad, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:47pm

I emailed the three professors about their paper
I wrote an email to the three professors and I hope to hear back from them. I'll post here if they do. Maybe I should start a blog with these rebuttles, I seem to be doing them more and more thanks to Digg and techdirt.

Anyway, this is what I wrote:

Hello,

My name is Brad Leonard. I'm a 23 year old male and I've played video
games. I read the summary of your paper on violent video games 'numbing'
video game players to real world violence and I have a few questions.

Your paper indicates that when a subject plays a violent video game and
then watches violence on a screen they are less responsive then when they
just watch violence on a screen.

Have you tested this "participate then witness" vs. "only witness" theory
with anything else?

Perhaps a person who eats and then watches a tv commercial for food will
react differently (become 'numb') than a person who has not eaten and
watches a tv commercial. There are many other examples I'm sure we could
think of.

Have you tested whether or not these subjects were De-sensitized to real
violence after playing video games, or just to similar on-screen violence?
Granted this would be a moral dilemma, but perhaps send them to a boxing
match or something similar and legal.

I'd like to direct your attention to an article with an ending paragraph
that goes:
"So the according to the FBI, the murder rate hit a new 40 year
low in 2004. The best selling video game of 2004? Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas."

http://www.gamerevolution.com/oldsite/articles/violence/violence.htm

I feel the ESRB has done more for the gaming industry and it's consumers
(perhaps even its adversaries as well) than many self-run industry
regulatory boards.

The gaming industry is new when compared to other entertainment industries
and I believe it should be looked at as a model for others and not some
immature child that needs to be reigned in.

In conclusion I ask of you to PLEASE be careful with announcing findings
like this. I, like you (I hope), believe research in all areas is
fundamental to us. But when claims are made in areas that the masses
may not have much knowledge in (video games and the majority of ~30+ year
olds?) they can misunderstand the findings and go to extremes. Take Sen.
Joe Lieberman (D) of CT for example. He leans hard against video games and
puts a spin on them which has a greater impact on those 30+ year olds than
your research paper or even the article in the link I provided above.

Please don't take my message as an attack or something from a disgruntled
gamer. I simply have an opinion and access to the Internet.

I hope we can have an open channel of discussion on this topic in the
future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Searcher619, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:54pm

Re: by Anonymous Coward
LOL!!! I love how you tried to do the same BS job that mainstream media is doing. Trying to show Israel as the agressors. As someone else here said why don't you show the many innocent Isralies killed by these cowards over the past few decades? Would we sit back and do nothing if it was Mexico or Canada that did to us what these animals have been doing to Israel? Hell no! But then I am asking someone that posts as anon coward to have some real balls and do some of their own thinking. No it's much easier to blindly follow...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EW, 25 Jul 2006 @ 12:57pm

Re: The biased AC. Also, isn't there another issue
Yes, they do show us images like that. We also see images like this:

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/images/busbomb2.jpg

And this:

http://www.tampabayprimer.org/images/suicide.jpg

I won't post the "real" ones because I'm not sure you can handle that there are two sides to your story.

Regarding the saner posts, I think some people will have the propensity to commit violence regardless of the media they're exposed to. As violent as our world is, history certainly tells us of even more violent times in the past. I'm pretty sure Ghengis Khan didn't play Grand Theft Auto.

Then again, the focus of the anti video game lobby is not a modern equivalent of Ghengis Khan, it's more likely that quiet kid down the block everybody picks on. Is he more likely to turn his fantasies of getting revenge on his tormentors into reality after he plays a session of some bloodfest on his Xbox? I don't know, but I would argue that he's going to fantasize with or without a video game to help. His problem is that he feels lonely and powerless. Shouldn't we really address that issue??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 1:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile in reality...
Also your interest in reason is belied by your use of the word "impossible" in your analysis of the opinions of british and canadian troops. You can't expect us to take you seriously when you imply that soldiers would rather choose to face enemies alone with a 100% chance of failure than with friends and some chance of success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 1:10pm

a game is not just a game...
Heck, I remember that time as a kid that I won big at monopoly. All I could do for years afterward was study and plan my career as the rich real estate tycoon that I was now sure to become.

NOT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
God hater, 25 Jul 2006 @ 1:28pm

if there was no God
there would be no violence and no death in the Middle East. Shouldn't someone do a study linking belief in God to violence? Wait, I just did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 1:32pm

Re: if there was no God
you underestimate the capability of humans to find things to fight about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyros, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:04pm

ROFL
I hate repition, but I do find it funny in this case. I think they (the researchers) need to stop coming up with complex answers, and simply take a step back and look at their "research" with common sense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
aparish21, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: if there was no God
yes it does not touch on that topic, but it should give people pause to think about what single issue has led to millions of deaths since man "created" God.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GR1F1TH, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:23pm

....this proves that violent tv shows desensitizes kids to video games then too doesn't it???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Louis, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:29pm

Desensitized to Violence
Apart from the ridiculous claim that animated violence desensitizes one to real violence (which are worlds apart). How exactly is being desensitized to violence linked to being prone to acts of violence? There is obviously a logical link to be made, however are they arguing that the fear of seeing a violent action is the only repellent to acting out such an act?

We expect the Police and Military to be desensitized to violence, to the extent that they don't panic when confronted with a scene of violence but are able to act rashly, but we don't expect them to enjoy ripping the arms off of babies.

I come from a country where violence among the youth is a major problem, and most often the youths are provoked into acts of violence by their peers, and rarely do they comprehend the repercussions of an actual violent act. In these particular cases desensitization of violence did not come before the violent action.

Furthermore, if history has taught us anything it is that Dogma and Religion are the ones that desensitizes us to acts of Violence, to the point where one justifies one's act of violence by either considering the victim to be somehow less than human or below oneself or by equating it to an act of a righteous god delivering the victim from its own heathen iniquity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:32pm

Re: if there was no God
Why do you say there would be no violence in the Middle East if there was no belief in God?
That seems like an incredibly naive assumption. Maybe you should read some history books. Most of the wars that have taken place in recorded history had nothing to do with religion. And of the ones that did have religion as the "official" cause, it was usually just the more acceptable excuse for the war, but not the real reason. The truth is that most wars are fought for greed. Either an abuse of power by those in charge resulting in a reaction by the abused parties, or an out and out power grab by someone who thinks that they can take what they want by force. The war may not always be started by the abuser, but the abuse of power through greed is usually the cause of the war. Given the incredible wealth in the Middle East, I think it is safe to say there would be war there no matter what. Belief in God was not the reason for any of the most recent wars in the Middle East, and it isn’t the cause for the current ones in Israel and Iraq. It is used by both sides to justify the wars, but the wars aren’t about “God” and would happen even if “God” wasn’t involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Louis, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:35pm

Re: Re: by Anonymous Coward

...Hell no! But then I am asking someone that posts as anon coward to have some real balls and do some of their own thinking. No it's much easier to blindly follow...

by Searcher619

Yes, and how exactly is "Searcher619" less anonymous?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: if there was no God
Belief in a particular god fuels a degenerate and belligerent culture. How can you separate the god from the culture? You can say "you can't know" but I can shrug and say "but it is so."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 25 Jul 2006 @ 2:50pm

Re: Re: Re: if there was no God
You can't separate "God" from a culture, but that doesn't change my basic point that most of the wars in our history books had nothing to do with "God." There are some exceptions, but by far most wars are started for power and greed, not religion.
As for your "you can't know" and the opposite "but it is so" reason. Very few wars are started for principles or disagreements over religious "facts."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I, for one, 25 Jul 2006 @ 4:09pm

Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but
AC#18 Then we agree, war is a stupid activity where frightened old stupid people lead brave young stupid people to their pointless stupid deaths.

It is also a "racket"

http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

And little boys who want to grow up to be toy soldiers need to get a damn life, or get laid a bit more.

Lois, I do strongly agree with you that professionals, police, medical workers and so on do need a degree of desensitisation. It comes with the job and experience, but it is a desensitisation to horror, not to violence. The two provoke very different though superficially similar responses which shouldn't be confused. And that's where the "reality check" comes on this subject of game violence. Every single one of those kids supposedly "desensitised" to violence would puke up if they saw a major injury and would fill their trousers if they ever came under fire. The researchers are simply comparing apples and oranges.

EW, saying "hey look at these other horrors that happened" does you no credit. Nobody but an emotional child is going to get into a "my tragedy is worse than yours" argument. The examples given are topical, they are happening now, which makes them relevant.
That said I personally have no sympathy with Isreal at all and consider that country belligerent, bloodthirsty, and agressive. I'm also not naive enough to believe that tars all Isrealis with the same brush or even that a majority of them support the bloodshed. If you are American or British you need to ask yourself why do our governments support such a brutal regime. Isreal is the nation embodyment of an abused child with a massive inferiority complex and a great big chip on its shoulder. Why they can't get over 1945 already and learn to live like human beings in the world with people again is beyond me, especially given the wealth of intellectual talent in that country. You are not special. Nobody is "persecuting" you. The truth is your greatest fear, that you are ordinary and *everybody* has to live with neighbours they don't like. At least they don't have the bloody French!

Searcher619, keep searching is all I can say. My attention stopped at the word "animals".

And the rest of you, STFU about God will you. I'm hard pressed to decide which is the most stupid, dying in a war for some impotent old pricks, or believing in imaginary people in the sky.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I, for one, 25 Jul 2006 @ 4:23pm

Brad
Nice. I'd genuinely like to believe some of those profs read and reply to your well analysed and stated criticism. But I'm a cynic and I think they are charlatens conducting bogus pseudoscience at the behest of some political lobby and would be too ashamed to defend their conclusions. Though I have to adjust my own tinfoil hat because I think... surely the administration would be rubbing its hands together at the thought of more violent and eager youth available to expend in the next round of killing in Iran. SO why label that a "bad" thing? Your scientific rigor in even the most superficial commentry probably puts them to shame.

bar one thing

then -> consequently
than -> comparative
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of course, 25 Jul 2006 @ 5:23pm

Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile in reality...
To start your tirade by calling me a liar for stating what
I believe is foolish. You cannot know what I believe.
I did state plainly and truthfully what I believe.

Instead of arguing the points you attack me personally
You ad hominem attack strips away the thin veneer of
reason and reveals the termite riddled underpinnings
of your stand.

Your knowledge of military tactics and practices is
deplorable. I know your claim that "Basically Americans
are not "fighters" is patently false. Close friends are
now or have been stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
None of them have ever threatened to kick anyone's
ass. They are humble, hard working professionals.
Sometimes they don't like the job they are assigned
but they do their best. Your assertions would be
insulting if they were not laughable.

I've seen remarks such as yours almost verbatim in
other venues. In my opinion your are a brain
washed robot and have no first hand knowledge of
any of the subjects you rail about.

I was taught never to argue with a drunk or a crazy
person. Later I learned that religious and political
zealots are to be avoided too.

I can't say it's been fun, or educational... rather
disappointing really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris, 26 Jul 2006 @ 8:23am

Link between video games and violence
From what I have seen no one has looked at why a person's heart beats faster when playing a violent video game. It might have something to do with being involved in the game. You are interacting, unlike watching TV. I find violent video games to be a good outlet, a stress reliever after work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I, for one, 26 Jul 2006 @ 8:47pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Meanwhile in reality...
Touched your pride?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ICUP, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:25am

Re: Why do we need pointless studies that prove th
"Why do we waste money proving obvious facts?"

Obvious facts? With all due respect for the right to your own opinion, I just had to respond to this with : "what the hell are you smokeing?"

Let me make one thing clear to you sir: If you think that it is an "obvious fact" that video games and various other media make children violent then you need to refresh your vocabulary and look up the word "fact".

Here I'll save you the time: A fact is a bit of knowledge that can be proven by means of study and cannot be challenged for the validity OF that knowledge. The oppisite of fact is opinion, which is somebodys belief or preference in an issue that can be disputed and argued with. Such things cannot be proven 100%.

Example of a fact: George Washington was the first president of the United States.

Example of an opinion: George Washington was the greatest president America ever had.

Now the answer to the issue of "does media(video games ect.) make children/people in general, violent" asks for nothing more than opinion based answer. The part where you said you think that they do make them violent, though I disagree with you, is not my issue here. It was when you said it was an obvious fact, THAT was when I absolutely had to respond to you.

Sir or Miss, whoever you are, I must say that if you think that the answer to this issue is an "obvious fact" then in my opinion, it sounds ignorant when you talk like that. Saying that it is an obvious fact is the same as me saying "Its an obvious fact as to what movie has the best story line"

I'm sorry but this is basically what you are saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ICUP, 30 Nov 2006 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Why do we need pointless studies that prov
Oh and one other thing. I have a link to an essay written by a highly respected person from Great Britian who has taken all of my thoughts and feelings about video games and put them into words where I could not.
This person may enlighten all of you somewhat:
Click Here
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BOB, 15 Mar 2007 @ 6:12am

HI
hihihihihihihihihihihi hi hi hi hi hihiihihihihihihiihihihi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anti-spam squad, 25 Mar 2007 @ 1:12pm

Re: HI
Don't spam, dude. It's NOT FUNNY!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]