Video games Back in the US dock.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yeah they probably said Gien and Starkweather were obviously caused by Comic Books.

[Utsanomiko]

Hmm, let me recall what the 'Chicken Little's Guide to Social Calamities' has clucked about throuought the last 100 years or so...

First it was Jazz music, then it was beatnik poetry (iirc), then comic books, then it was civil rights, then the 'Satanic Panic' hit for a few years, followed by a prolonged disconcern for loud rock music, then it was TV in the early 90s I think, now it's been video games in the spotlight for maybe a little under a decade.

Is there a pamphlet or a CLGSC club member's calendar that schedules what the upcoming 'new menaces to society' are? I wanna know if, when I get into the Game Design industry within the next five years, whether they have moved onto something like trading cards or pogs, or if they're still blaming the last 45 years of violence on the last 25 years of media.

[Joe]

yeah they probably said Gien and Starkweather were obviously caused by Comic Books.

Hitler obviously played Risk as a young man, eventually driving him to strive for world domination.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Waitting for them to blame the road runner for some damn fool thing some kid does. Yeah he placed a pair of solid rocket boosters on his rollerblades.....

[Ghost Rider]

Waitting for them to blame the road runner for some damn fool thing some kid does. Yeah he placed a pair of solid rocket boosters on his rollerblades.....

Pfft WB probably already believes that given how hard it's to find those damn cartoons these days(3AM...is so far the only time I've seen them on)

[The Yosemite Bear]

Either that or have already been subject to a frivilous lawsuit over it...

[Axis Kast]

I can and have backed up my claim with quotes from the Bible. Your response, on the other hand, relies on nothing more than appeals to personal incredulity in lieu of actual rebuttals.

Quotations from the Bible do not accurately reflect a general method of religious pedagogy. You demonize religion under the patently absurd assumption that because the Bible makes reference to violent events, they must somehow be the only focus of theological discussion. Wrong. A great deal of contemporary study of the Bible – especially among children – emphasizes moral and social foundation. Most people aren’t exposed to the Biblical elements you deride until college.

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that I assume people agree that murdering babies is bad. How foolish of me.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. How can you honestly pretend that your assessment of religious teachings or values at all approaches the fair and balanced?

Yes. Are you suggesting that a book which contains countless atrocities is made A-OK if it says something nice now and then? I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, any more than a serial killer becomes a nice guy if he volunteered at a soup kitchen.

I’m suggesting that a book which contains countless atrocities is also a book which contains an important message regarding the moral foundation of modern society and is therefore a vital social resource. You’re shifting the argument toward one absolute extreme. The vast majority of our children aren’t leaving Sunday School intending to go and murder another human being, Wong.

Of course not. That's precisely the point , dumb-ass! They're made to think that it's somehow OK!

They are? Children who go to Sunday School spend most of their time listening to categorical justifications of every last violent act recorded in the New and Old Testament? This is news to me.

So there's no harm if you can't see evidence of a direct connection, yet you claimed earliier that we must recognize the connection between videogames and real-life violence?

In other words, you either agree that without direct evidence for causal connection, you should not assume a connection, or you concede that the Bible probably causes a lot of real-life problems. One or the other, take your pick. But you can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much you obviously want to.

Videogames generally do not impart morals, Wong.

You have no evidence, Wong, aside from a handful of deranged militia on backwoods lots. Rank and file America isn’t being corrupted by the Bible. If you look at modern media however and the vast and sweeping desensitization of the average American teenager to high-risk behavior, the negative consequences of violent or consequence-free image bombardment is clear.

I'm running out of polite ways to say there's no measurable impact. And funny how you insist we're not talking about restriction, and later IN THIS SAME POST you claim that since we can't do anything about bad parents, we should do "something" about the media. There is NO RELIABLE DATA that suggests violent images in the media lead to increased violence among young people (and I notice you've now extended negative images to include drug use, when you haven't even proven violence). "Common sense" and assertions that something is "obvious" don't cut it, not when you want to talk about making policy changes. Regardless of whether or not you want to talk about them SPECIFICALLY, this whole argument is basically "do those images have enough of an impact to warrant a chance in policy".

Just because I point out justifications for action based on the original argument doesn’t mean I plan to debate their merits independently.

As for data, your opinion is no more valid than my own. I don’t see any statistical evidence in your responses either. What I do see however are blanket statements bearing nothing more than the mark of opinion.

You completely dodged my point. I did NOT say the state was powerless--in fact, I SPECIFICALLY said "you might prevent GTA IV"--but I asked you how you planned to prevent children from being exposed to the wealth of violent material already out there, and crack down on music lyrics when there's already a well established underground that could easily create and distribute the images you're trying to bury.

The overall impact of forcing overly-violent or non-consequence images off television (to some extent) would probably be a major step forward in and of itself. There’s no way to “hijack” cable to bring in shows that no longer air.

ou haven't proven it's an agitator worth focusing on. I'd say the War on Drugs is a much, much bigger source of violent crime than Eminem CDs could ever hope to be.

Do you actually read my initial statements? They weren’t devoted exclusively to violent repercussions, but also to the problem of deleterious effects on those exposed to alcohol or drugs. Now don’t tell me that you think role models’ advocacy for drugs and drinking is inconsequential.

I also like how he automatically assumes that the increase in violence in American (actually, the increase from the 1950's to the 1980s or so. It's actually been going down in recent years, but that hurts the 'back in my day' arguement) stems directly from violence in the media, and not even consider it possibility that it could be the other way around, or even totally unrelated.

For all Kast is assuming, it could be that today's violence and crime is directly caused by the nation's changes in cost of living, forcing parents to pend more time at wrok and less watching their kids, and enabling crime to become a more lucrative outlet for the underpriveliged.

You don’t read, do you? I predicated my argument on the fact that society’s ills are mostly related to bad parenting – but that it’s virtually beyond our reach to force parents to deal with their children.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Hey, when did your title get changed?

[Stark]

...You cannot deny however that the profusion of base images in popular culture impact the minds of children exposed to them. Without proper moderation by a source of adult authority - a parent or caretaker -, it isn't a stretch to suggest that many people might be desensitized.

Parents can't really, realistically, attempt to control every part of a teenagers life. ESPECIALLY when they don't have a good relationship with their kids to start with.
But anyway - I dispute the idea that media can warp your mind to such a degree. I'm sure its a problem if GTA is a surrogate parent, but thats not the issue. Unless you're a borderline crazy horse already, this whole 'telling the difference between fantasy and reality' is rubbish. Do you suggest that porn makes people commit rape, even tho evidence shows otherwise? 'Desensitised' is a stupid buzzword. I play alot of shooters, and all I've gained from that is a wide database of firearm characteristics. I still hate watching medical videos where the cut people up. Icky.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Hey, when did your title get changed?

It's been like that for a while. It's his fourth one, IIRC. That must be a record.

[Axis Kast]

It's not simply violence. Consider the impact endless lyrics related to suicide, drugs, and alcohol have on youth - especially (and primarily) when we can't do anything about their lack of parental guidance in the first place.

Television and movies repeatedly play down the effects of "recreational" drug use and heavy drinking.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

As part of a freshman term paper on video game violence, I read a research study that found there was no relation between game violence and violent behavior. They suggested that perhaps the interactive nature of video games might "disconnect" the associations the brain makes with behavior as it does with other violent media.

[Axis Kast]

And movies?

Now was this only violence, or also drug and alcohol use?

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Jesus, can't you fucking read?

I said that they suggested that it was the INTERACTIVE nature of VIDEO GAMES that might be different from other forms of VIOLENT media.

[Sharp-kun]

Parents can't really, realistically, attempt to control every part of a teenagers life. ESPECIALLY when they don't have a good relationship with their kids to start with.

No, they can't. It is still ultimatly their responsibility to try and ensure they don't get hold of "unsutiable media", let alone firearms. In this case I suspect that they didn't bother.

[Darth Wong]

I can and have backed up my claim with quotes from the Bible. Your response, on the other hand, relies on nothing more than appeals to personal incredulity in lieu of actual rebuttals.

Quotations from the Bible do not accurately reflect a general method of religious pedagogy. You demonize religion under the patently absurd assumption that because the Bible makes reference to violent events, they must somehow be the only focus of theological discussion. Wrong.

Strawman fallacy. At no point did I claim that the Bible talks about nothing but violence and hate. Your bizarre and sad assertion that its hatred is somehow nullified by the other parts is both ridiculous and wrong.

A great deal of contemporary study of the Bible – especially among children – emphasizes moral and social foundation. Most people aren’t exposed to the Biblical elements you deride until college.

Bullshit. As I said, every kid knows about the Flood and Israelite terrorism in Egypt (aka the Exodus).

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that I assume people agree that murdering babies is bad. How foolish of me.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. How can you honestly pretend that your assessment of religious teachings or values at all approaches the fair and balanced?

"Fair and balanced" is a meaningless buzzword. Find proof that my statements are incorrect. If you can't do so, then you're just blowing hot air and bullshit as usual.

I’m suggesting that a book which contains countless atrocities is also a book which contains an important message regarding the moral foundation of modern society and is therefore a vital social resource.

And you've provided not a shred of evidence for this. How is modern society founded upon the morals of the Bible?

You’re shifting the argument toward one absolute extreme. The vast majority of our children aren’t leaving Sunday School intending to go and murder another human being, Wong.

And the vast majority of our children don't play Halo and then run around shooting people! That's precisely the point, fuckhead! You apply one standard for videogames and another standard for the Bible.

Videogames generally do not impart morals, Wong.

Neither does the Bible, asshole. Every attempt to prove that Christians are more moral than everyone else has invariably failed.

You have no evidence, Wong, aside from a handful of deranged militia on backwoods lots.

I have as much evidence for the Bible directly causing violence as you do for videogames causing violence, dumb-ass. That is exactly the point I was making, but you apparently suffered a massive head injury which made you incapable of doing anything but mindlessly repeating yourself over and over.

Rank and file America isn’t being corrupted by the Bible. If you look at modern media however and the vast and sweeping desensitization of the average American teenager to high-risk behavior, the negative consequences of violent or consequence-free image bombardment is clear.

SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT WITH EVIDENCE, ASSHOLE. I'm tired of your vast and sweeping generalizations and statements of opinions as fact.

I'm running out of polite ways to say there's no measurable impact.

Perhaps instead of trying to find new ways to say the same fucking thing over and over, you should try actually engaging the atrophied lump of congealed monkeyshit that's sitting in your skull where your brain should be. There is no way to blame videogames for violence without employing logic that would also blame the Bible for all religious intolerance and hatred. Your stone-deaf refusal to deal with that fact will convince no one but yourself. We should sue churches before we sue videogame makers; after all, there is more of a correlation between religion and violence than there is between videogames and violence (or didn't you know that the Bible Belt has a high murder rate and that fanatically religious Louisiana, with its sky-high church attendance rates, tops the board for murder too?)

<snip more voluminous bullshit attempts to evade this simple fact>

You don’t read, do you?

Actually, I do know how to read. But unlike you, I also go the extra step of understanding what I read, while you appear to be limited to mouthing the words while your chronic-care attendant wipes the drool off your chin.

I predicated my argument on the fact that society’s ills are mostly related to bad parenting – but that it’s virtually beyond our reach to force parents to deal with their children.

So in a variation of the "deep pockets" lawsuit mentality, you advocate that we simply go after the nearest convenient target, even without a shred of evidence that there is a direct link. Of course; how could I possibly see such a brilliantly reasonable argument and not agree with it?

[Axis Kast]

Strawman fallacy. At no point did I claim that the Bible talks about nothing but violence and hate. Your bizarre and sad assertion that its hatred is somehow nullified by the other parts is both ridiculous and wrong.

Your opinions on the Bible are obvious, Wong. We know your stance on organized religion. It’s clear for all to see.

Bullshit. As I said, every kid knows about the Flood and Israelite terrorism in Egypt (aka the Exodus).

No. Not every child learns about “Israelite terrorism.” That’s just your own self-indulgent spin.

"Fair and balanced" is a meaningless buzzword. Find proof that my statements are incorrect . If you can't do so, then you're just blowing hot air and bullshit as usual.

On the contrary. It’s vital to this argument that we have discussion founded on circumspect analysis, not the bitterly anti-theological rantings of one Mike Wong.

And you've provided not a shred of evidence for this. How is modern society founded upon the morals of the Bible?

British North America was founded by white Christian males whose opinions of social order and obligation were drawn directly from Scripture. Many of those first laws, precepts, and guiding principles remain in place today. Go read a history book.

And the vast majority of our children don't play Halo and then run around shooting people! That's precisely the point, fuckhead! You apply one standard for videogames and another standard for the Bible.

It’s a matter of exposure. The Bible comes with commentary and discussion of consequence. Grand Theft Auto does not.

Neither does the Bible, asshole. Every attempt to prove that Christians are more moral than everyone else has invariably failed.

What the fuck?! The Bible is essentially a massive moral codex. Do you pay any attention to the way it’s studied in a general context? You do realize that the vast majority of Christians and Jews take the Bible as a moral and social commentary, I hope.

I have as much evidence for the Bible directly causing violence as you do for videogames causing violence, dumb-ass. That is exactly the point I was making, but you apparently suffered a massive head injury which made you incapable of doing anything but mindlessly repeating yourself over and over.

I have the evidence of society. People act like the role models they see on television and in the movies. We know this. It only stands to reason that prolonged drug and alcohol use by those same role models will have a negative impact on their public following – most of whom happen to be between the ages of eleven and eighteen.

SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT WITH EVIDENCE, ASSHOLE . I'm tired of your vast and sweeping generalizations and statements of opinions as fact.

How about the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology?

Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html

Then there’s this study …

Impact of Media on Children and Adolescents: A 10-Year Review of the Research , by Susan Villani, MD in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , April 2001

Which can be found here: http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/medi ... tudies.htm.

Perhaps instead of trying to find new ways to say the same fucking thing over and over, you should try actually engaging the atrophied lump of congealed monkeyshit that's sitting in your skull where your brain should be. There is no way to blame videogames for violence without employing logic that would also blame the Bible for all religious intolerance and hatred . Your stone-deaf refusal to deal with that fact will convince no one but yourself. We should sue churches before we sue videogame makers; after all, there is more of a correlation between religion and violence than there is between videogames and violence (or didn't you know that the Bible Belt has a high murder rate and that fanatically religious Louisiana, with its sky-high church attendance rates, tops the board for murder too?)

Nobody is making the argument that the Bibile or video games are responsible for all violence, you stupid fucktard.

The point here is that certain videogames and media desensitize us to violence through their sheer graphic nature and deaden children to consequences. The Bibile, as I pointed out before, is usually accompanied by commentary. Video games are not.

Are the murders in the Bible Belt because of poverty, Wong, or because of Biblical fanatacism? The one mightn’t have anything to do with the other.

So in a variation of the "deep pockets" lawsuit mentality, you advocate that we simply go after the nearest convenient target, even without a shred of evidence that there is a direct link. Of course; how could I possibly see such a brilliantly reasonable argument and not agree with it?

Ah, but I have evidence.

[Stuart Mackey]

It's really too bad. I wonder what the world was like before violent video games, and movies started making people kill each other. Imagine a world with no violence....it must have been heaven back then.

Indeed. What I find interesting is that back when I was a nipper befor these violent computer games..we played war.
Me and my mates ran around in organiserd units with toy guns 'shooting' each other..sound familiar?

[Darth Wong]

Strawman fallacy. At no point did I claim that the Bible talks about nothing but violence and hate. Your bizarre and sad assertion that its hatred is somehow nullified by the other parts is both ridiculous and wrong.

Your opinions on the Bible are obvious, Wong. We know your stance on organized religion. It’s clear for all to see.

And that stance is negative. Doesn't mean your strawman is accurate, dumb-ass.

Bullshit. As I said, every kid knows about the Flood and Israelite terrorism in Egypt (aka the Exodus).

No. Not every child learns about “Israelite terrorism.” That’s just your own self-indulgent spin.

Prove it wrong, then.

"Fair and balanced" is a meaningless buzzword. Find proof that my statements are incorrect . If you can't do so, then you're just blowing hot air and bullshit as usual.

On the contrary. It’s vital to this argument that we have discussion founded on circumspect analysis, not the bitterly anti-theological rantings of one Mike Wong.

In other words, you can't find the proof I'm asking for. Concession accepted, asshole. Ultimately, you don't like me bashing the Bible but you can't actually prove me wrong, so you just get whiny and complain that my attitudes are anti-Biblical, as if that's news to anyone. I'm also anti-Mein Kampf too; I guess that means my negative views on it must be invalid?

And you've provided not a shred of evidence for this. How is modern society founded upon the morals of the Bible?

British North America was founded by white Christian males whose opinions of social order and obligation were drawn directly from Scripture. Many of those first laws, precepts, and guiding principles remain in place today. Go read a history book.

Yet another vague refererence without a shred of evidence to back it up. This grows tiresome, Mr. Bullshit Artist. Find one American federal law which is uniquely derived from a Christian basis.

And the vast majority of our children don't play Halo and then run around shooting people! That's precisely the point, fuckhead! You apply one standard for videogames and another standard for the Bible.

It’s a matter of exposure. The Bible comes with commentary and discussion of consequence. Grand Theft Auto does not.

The commentary in the Bible praises these violent actions! GTA's lack of commentary is actually better than the Bible's disgusting praise for baby-killing. Or are you too fucking stupid to realize that it's not a good thing to openly praise someone for butchering babies?

Neither does the Bible, asshole. Every attempt to prove that Christians are more moral than everyone else has invariably failed.

What the fuck?! The Bible is essentially a massive moral codex. Do you pay any attention to the way it’s studied in a general context? You do realize that the vast majority of Christians and Jews take the Bible as a moral and social commentary, I hope.

The Bible is a massively BAD moral codex, and your appeals to popularity don't mean shit.

I have the evidence of society. People act like the role models they see on television and in the movies. We know this. It only stands to reason that prolonged drug and alcohol use by those same role models will have a negative impact on their public following – most of whom happen to be between the ages of eleven and eighteen.

People want to act like the role models they are told to look up to in the Bible. We know this. It only stands to reason that prolonged killing, raping, terrorism, and genocide by those same role models will have a negative impact on their public following - which begins its indoctrination even earliier than 11-18.

SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT WITH EVIDENCE, ASSHOLE . I'm tired of your vast and sweeping generalizations and statements of opinions as fact.

How about the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology?

Obviously, you think I respect psychologists, even though any idiot can take and pass psychology and their standard of proof is uncontrolled correlations.

Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp784772.html

If you actually read the study, you will discover that in study 1, they ask students to fill out a questionnaire, and then they try to determine whether the student is violent based on his answers. Then, they correlate his "violent" survey answers to his claimed videogame playing habits and act as though this represents evidence that one causes the other. Typically pathetic psychology pseudoscience bullshit; does the phrase "false cause fallacy" mean anything to you?

And in study 2, they simply went nuts and used utterly insane methods. They had participants play videogames and then answer yes or no to questions like "I feel mean" or "I feel tough". In the second session, they flashed "good" or "bad" words onscreen after playing videogames and asked participants to read them aloud (apparently, if you can say "bad" words like "murder" faster than you can say "consider", then you're more aggressive ). And in the third session, they had participants engage in reaction-time contests where the winner honks an air horn at the loser, and measured the length of the honk to determine who had become more violent. This study is a joke, and in the preface, they also went and admitted that prior to this laughable study, the total research on this subject was inconclusive, and that "In sum, there is little experimental evidence that the violent content of video games can increase aggression in the immediate situation."

Then there’s this study …

Impact of Media on Children and Adolescents: A 10-Year Review of the Research , by Susan Villani, MD in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , April 2001

Which can be found here: http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/medi ... tudies.htm.

Wow, you know how to Google search! Now explain how any of the studies on this search page are any more useful than the first one you tried to use.

Nobody is making the argument that the Bibile or video games are responsible for all violence, you stupid fucktard.

No, but you are making the argument that videogames can be held at least partially responsible, while the Bible cannot. And when challenged, you just splutter that I'm being "anti-theological" (wow, just label your opponent and all of his arguments magically evapourate into the wind!) Best of all, you simply ignore the fact that there is a stronger correlation between religious fervour and violence than there is between video gameplay and violence.

The point here is that certain videogames and media desensitize us to violence through their sheer graphic nature and deaden children to consequences. The Bibile, as I pointed out before, is usually accompanied by commentary. Video games are not.

The Bible's commentary praises the murderers, dumb-ass. This is worse than no commentary at all.

Are the murders in the Bible Belt because of poverty, Wong, or because of Biblical fanatacism? The one mightn’t have anything to do with the other.

Funny how you realize that when it's the Bible, but not when it's videogames.

So in a variation of the "deep pockets" lawsuit mentality, you advocate that we simply go after the nearest convenient target, even without a shred of evidence that there is a direct link. Of course; how could I possibly see such a brilliantly reasonable argument and not agree with it?

Ah, but I have evidence.

What evidence? That pathetic study you cited, in which they prefaced their work by admitting that there was no evidence and then tried to remedy that problem with that goofball study in which they had people blowing air horns at each other in an attempt to determine who was more violent? Don't make me laugh.

I don't know what's worse about that study; its almost comically ridiculous methods, or the fact that you are so goddamned ignorant of the scientific method (not to mention simple logic) that you actually took it seriously. Face it; you talk a good game but you're nothing more than a poster boy for the failure of science education in your region.

[Axis Kast]

And that stance is negative. Doesn't mean your strawman is accurate, dumb-ass.

No. That stance is “foaming at the mouth.”

Prove it wrong, then.

It’s quite obvious that not every child in America is subjected to the story of “Israelite terrorism.” The fact that you couch the story of Passover in those terms proves absolutely your ridiculous personal bias. You’ve proven nothing at all about Biblical pedagogy worth acknowledging.

In other words, you can't find the proof I'm asking for. Concession accepted, asshole. Ultimately, you don't like me bashing the Bible but you can't actually prove me wrong, so you just get whiny and complain that my attitudes are anti-Biblical, as if that's news to anyone. I'm also anti-Mein Kampf too; I guess that means my negative views on it must be invalid?

Your arguments cross the border to ridiculous and you know it. Don’t try to feed anyone this, “My negative opinions are justified!” horse shit. You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of religious institutions condone nothing of the slaughter and rapine that appear in the Bible. It’s not my responsibility to disabuse you of falsehoods uttered out of stupidity.

Yet another vague refererence without a shred of evidence to back it up. This grows tiresome, Mr. Bullshit Artist. Find one American federal law which is uniquely derived from a Christian basis.

You mean aside from laws prohibiting sodomy or the sale of liquor on Sunday mornings? And this is assuming you refuse to accept that the Founding Fathers, Deists as they were, actually relied on the Bible for social, moral, and sometimes political commentary they believed worthwhile in the justification of Exceptionalism.

The commentary in the Bible praises these violent actions! GTA's lack of commentary is actually better than the Bible's disgusting praise for baby-killing. Or are you too fucking stupid to realize that it's not a good thing to openly praise someone for butchering babies?

Almost no focused study of the Bible by children is individual – especially not anything related specifically to atrocities, floods, or other disasters. Not to mention that religious schools feature priests, bishops, rabbis and others whose task it is to provide commentary. The Bible doesn’t stand alone. Video games do.

Get it through your fucking head: virtually no study of the Bible by anyone outside the collegiate or university level deals specifically and exclusively with the themes you demonize.

The Bible is a massively BAD moral codex, and your appeals to popularity don't mean shit.

In this specific case? Absolutely not. Thanks Mr. Morality, but in case you hadn’t noticed, the majority sets its own standards. Society by and large embraces the Bible and has found it quite acceptable as a guide both spiritual and temporal. This is fact. It’s not up for dispute. For most people, it works.

People want to act like the role models they are told to look up to in the Bible. We know this. It only stands to reason that prolonged killing, raping, terrorism, and genocide by those same role models will have a negative impact on their public following - which begins its indoctrination even earliier than 11-18.

Bull and shit. People want to act like the role models they see in the Bible, but nobody in the mainstream is confirming child slaughter as an acceptable mode of life. Stop with the fucking red herrings already.

Obviously, you think I respect psychologists, even though any idiot can take and pass psychology and their standard of proof is uncontrolled correlations.

It’s a fucking branch of science, you moron. We know certain thought processes actually occur and behaviors develop because of prolonged observation and testing. But I guess it’s okay to dismiss professional opinion just because you don’t agree despite not having had a formal education in that specific field. If that’s so, everybody’s wrong and I win. Game over. You lose. Idiot.

If you actually read the study, you will discover that in study 1, they ask students to fill out a questionnaire, and then they try to determine whether the student is violent based on his answers. Then, they correlate his "violent" survey answers to his claimed videogame playing habits and act as though this represents evidence that one causes the other. Typically pathetic psychology pseudoscience bullshit; does the phrase "false cause fallacy" mean anything to you?

And in study 2, they simply went nuts and used utterly insane methods. They had participants play videogames and then answer yes or no to questions like "I feel mean" or "I feel tough". In the second session, they flashed "good" or "bad" words onscreen after playing videogames and asked participants to read them aloud (apparently, if you can say "bad" words like "murder" faster than you can say "consider", then you're more aggressive ). And in the third session, they had participants engage in reaction-time contests where the winner honks an air horn at the loser, and measured the length of the honk to determine who had become more violent. This study is a joke, and in the preface, they also went and admitted that prior to this laughable study, the total research on this subject was inconclusive, and that "In sum, there is little experimental evidence that the violent content of video games can increase aggression in the immediate situation."

It’s published in an academic journal. Obviously, somebody important thought highly enough of these appraisals to validate them with circulation among other professionals in the field.

Wow, you know how to Google search! Now explain how any of the studies on this search page are any more useful than the first one you tried to use.

If you’re so interested, read the second link I provided. It validates the theory that media impacts child development.

Conclusions: The primary effects of media exposure are increased violent and aggressive behavior, increased high-risk behaviors, including alcohol and tobacco use, and accelerated forms of sexual activity.

While the article goes on to say that the research is now gradually becoming date – there are references mostly to the 80s –, there’s no reason to assume a systemic change in the overall pattern of child development.

No, but you are making the argument that videogames can be held at least partially responsible, while the Bible cannot. And when challenged, you just splutter that I'm being "anti-theological" (wow, just label your opponent and all of his arguments magically evapourate into the wind!) Best of all, you simply ignore the fact that there is a stronger correlation between religious fervour and violence than there is between video gameplay and violence.

It’s not that the Bible isn’t responsible for anything negative – it’s that there’s far more guidance out there regarding that topic. Video games don’t come complete with commentary.

I “sputter that you’re being anti-theological”? No. I see very clearly that you’re being anti-theological. Introduction to “Israelite terrorism” my fucking ass – or didn’t you realize that the terms you use are specifically value-laden?

What evidence? That pathetic study you cited, in which they prefaced their work by admitting that there was no evidence and then tried to remedy that problem with that goofball study in which they had people blowing air horns at each other in an attempt to determine who was more violent? Don't make me laugh.

I don't know what's worse about that study; its almost comically ridiculous methods, or the fact that you are so goddamned ignorant of the scientific method (not to mention simple logic) that you actually took it seriously. Face it; you talk a good game but you're nothing more than a poster boy for the failure of science education in your region.

There are plenty of other studies, Wong – specifically the one you failed to read.

“The failure of science education?” I’m not the one claiming to have more authority than trained, published psychologists.

[Darth Wong]

Your arguments cross the border to ridiculous and you know it. Don’t try to feed anyone this, “My negative opinions are justified!” horse shit.

Funny how you keep saying this bullshit, yet you can't actually find an error in my claims.

You know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of religious institutions condone nothing of the slaughter and rapine that appear in the Bible.

Wrong. Find me one church which is willing to say that the Great Flood was evil, or that God's "miracles" in Egypt were cruel and immoral.

It’s not my responsibility to disabuse you of falsehoods uttered out of stupidity.

Speak for yourself, moron.

Yet another vague refererence without a shred of evidence to back it up. This grows tiresome, Mr. Bullshit Artist. Find one American federal law which is uniquely derived from a Christian basis.

You mean aside from laws prohibiting sodomy or the sale of liquor on Sunday mornings?

Yes, since those are not federal laws, dumb-ass. Where did you learn to read?

And this is assuming you refuse to accept that the Founding Fathers, Deists as they were, actually relied on the Bible for social, moral, and sometimes political commentary they believed worthwhile in the justification of Exceptionalism.

They also took from Locke, Descartes, Plato, and anybody else they could read from. It doesn't mean that the laws of the nation are all based on Plato. Your claim is bullshit, but you're obviously too fucking stupid to recognize it.

Almost no focused study of the Bible by children is individual – especially not anything related specifically to atrocities, floods, or other disasters. Not to mention that religious schools feature priests, bishops, rabbis and others whose task it is to provide commentary. The Bible doesn’t stand alone. Video games do.

You forgot to mention that without exception, churches and pastors praise the God who committed these atrocities. For the third time, that is worse than no commentary at all. Are you honestly too fucking stupid to recognize this?

Get it through your fucking head: virtually no study of the Bible by anyone outside the collegiate or university level deals specifically and exclusively with the themes you demonize.

Of course. No one ever hears of the Great Flood or God's terrorist "miracles" in Egypt until the collegiate or university level

In this specific case? Absolutely not. Thanks Mr. Morality, but in case you hadn’t noticed, the majority sets its own standards. Society by and large embraces the Bible and has found it quite acceptable as a guide both spiritual and temporal. This is fact. It’s not up for dispute. For most people, it works.

200 years ago, you could have said the same thing about slavery, dumb-ass. Appeals to popularity are the last resort of the idiot.

People want to act like the role models they are told to look up to in the Bible. We know this. It only stands to reason that prolonged killing, raping, terrorism, and genocide by those same role models will have a negative impact on their public following - which begins its indoctrination even earliier than 11-18.

Bull and shit. People want to act like the role models they see in the Bible, but nobody in the mainstream is confirming child slaughter as an acceptable mode of life. Stop with the fucking red herrings already.

Funny how you suddenly see that it's bullshit when I simply substitute "Bible" for videogames in your argument, eh? Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Obviously, you think I respect psychologists, even though any idiot can take and pass psychology and their standard of proof is uncontrolled correlations.

It’s a fucking branch of science, you moron. We know certain thought processes actually occur and behaviors develop because of prolonged observation and testing. But I guess it’s okay to dismiss professional opinion just because you don’t agree despite not having had a formal education in that specific field. If that’s so, everybody’s wrong and I win. Game over. You lose. Idiot.

you honestly think that because psychologists call themselves scientists, their methods are automatically validated? I love your idiotic appeals to authority; if psychologists as a group apply the scientific method properly, name one psychological theory which has been conclusively discarded by the psychology community. Simply pointing out that they have educations doesn't prove shit (especially when the psychology dept. is often found in the arts faculty of a typical university).

If you actually read the study, you will discover that in study 1, they ask students to fill out a questionnaire, and then they try to determine whether the student is violent based on his answers. Then, they correlate his "violent" survey answers to his claimed videogame playing habits and act as though this represents evidence that one causes the other. Typically pathetic psychology pseudoscience bullshit; does the phrase "false cause fallacy" mean anything to you?

And in study 2, they simply went nuts and used utterly insane methods. They had participants play videogames and then answer yes or no to questions like "I feel mean" or "I feel tough". In the second session, they flashed "good" or "bad" words onscreen after playing videogames and asked participants to read them aloud (apparently, if you can say "bad" words like "murder" faster than you can say "consider", then you're more aggressive ). And in the third session, they had participants engage in reaction-time contests where the winner honks an air horn at the loser, and measured the length of the honk to determine who had become more violent. This study is a joke, and in the preface, they also went and admitted that prior to this laughable study, the total research on this subject was inconclusive, and that "In sum, there is little experimental evidence that the violent content of video games can increase aggression in the immediate situation."

It’s published in an academic journal. Obviously, somebody important thought highly enough of these appraisals to validate them with circulation among other professionals in the field.

I post a detailed examination of how the study's methodology is a joke and all you can say is that it's in a journal therefore it must be right? ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

If you’re so interested, read the second link I provided. It validates the theory that media impacts child development.

Show how. So far, it's quite obvious that you just quote conclusions and you don't even care how they came to them. In effect, you mindlessly appeal to the authority of psychology; care to check the entrance requirements for the psychology program at the average university? You'll find that despite your idiotic claims to the contrary, it is for morons.

Conclusions: The primary effects of media exposure are increased violent and aggressive behavior, increased high-risk behaviors, including alcohol and tobacco use, and accelerated forms of sexual activity.

Intelligent people don't examine other peoples' conclusions or appeal to them; instead, they examine the reasoning and methods used to reach those conclusions. Of course, you are not an intelligent person.

While the article goes on to say that the research is now gradually becoming date – there are references mostly to the 80s –, there’s no reason to assume a systemic change in the overall pattern of child development.

There is also no reason to take a psychology study's conclusions at face value. Psychologists have a long and sordid history of joke theories: subliminal high-speed visual advertising, multiple personality disorder being classified as real, distinct individuals, etc.

No, but you are making the argument that videogames can be held at least partially responsible, while the Bible cannot. And when challenged, you just splutter that I'm being "anti-theological" (wow, just label your opponent and all of his arguments magically evapourate into the wind!) Best of all, you simply ignore the fact that there is a stronger correlation between religious fervour and violence than there is between video gameplay and violence.

It’s not that the Bible isn’t responsible for anything negative – it’s that there’s far more guidance out there regarding that topic. Video games don’t come complete with commentary.

For the umpteenth time, that "guidance" tells you to PRAISE the fucker who murdered all of these people! Get it yet?

I “sputter that you’re being anti-theological”? No. I see very clearly that you’re being anti-theological. Introduction to “Israelite terrorism” my fucking ass – or didn’t you realize that the terms you use are specifically value-laden?

It doesn't matter if they're "value-laden"; you have failed to show that they are incorrect. Style over substance fallacy, moron.

What evidence? That pathetic study you cited, in which they prefaced their work by admitting that there was no evidence and then tried to remedy that problem with that goofball study in which they had people blowing air horns at each other in an attempt to determine who was more violent? Don't make me laugh.

I don't know what's worse about that study; its almost comically ridiculous methods, or the fact that you are so goddamned ignorant of the scientific method (not to mention simple logic) that you actually took it seriously. Face it; you talk a good game but you're nothing more than a poster boy for the failure of science education in your region.

There are plenty of other studies, Wong – specifically the one you failed to read.

Then explain its methodology, and show how it's any less of a joke than the first one.

“The failure of science education?” I’m not the one claiming to have more authority than trained, published psychologists.

No, you're the idiot who thinks science is about "authority" rather than methodology. Quite frankly, that says it all right there.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Stupid question, but how did a discussion about video games drift to the Bible?

[Darth Wong]

Stupid question, but how did a discussion about video games drift to the Bible?

I pointed out that all of his arguments against videogames could easily be applied to the Bible. Naturally, he went apoplectic and declared that the Bible is a source of morality and can't possibly be compared to violent videogames.

So the last couple of posts have basically covered two subjects: Bible vs videogames and Kast's appeals to questionable pseudoscience in pursuit of his idiotic goal of proving that videogames cause violence.

[Connor MacLeod]

Speak for yourself, asshole.

I’m not the one dismissing all organized religion as shameless indoctrination into rites of violence.

I have to step in here. Mike wasn't talking about all organized religion. Just the stuff based on the Old Testament (mostly hard core fundies.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Kast's hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. The Bible depicts the heroes of the story committing terrorism, infanticide, rape, and other assorted war crimes, but he says that we need evidence to connect it to real-life harm. Meanwhile, videogames generally depict the heroes of the story trying to restrict their violence to combatants rather than civilians, and he needs no evidence in order to conclude that they are "agitating" violent crime

don't forget his strawman by attempting to claim you were discussing all organized religion rather htan just the Bible.