Jump to content


Ray Jones

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ray Jones

  1. Oh, err,.. I believe the correct spelling would be Rouge'N'Ian? ^^






    "A typical picture of an innocent looking human youngling, who will once hopefully turn into

    the food porn feasting beast, yet utmost sexy boi and picture of a man, layer of the girls,

    that Rogue Nine has become already today. ALL HAIL NINER!"






  2. My apologies, Ray. When you said that video games had "some effect" I made the mistake of assuming that you meant that within the context of the discussion.
    Your question was what kind of effect I was referring to when I said I think video games do have an effect on people. It has been answered.


    Also, the topic of this thread is "Do violent video games corrupt our youth?" -- So, if so and so much young people show symptoms of an addiction to video games it's not really that much of a drift to catch to say these young people are already corrupted by video games. Especially when you'd read this part of my post:


    "One of the primary concerns with violence in video games is that gaming is not passive. In order to play and win, the player has to be the aggressor. Rather than watching violence, as he might do on television, he's committing the violent acts. Most researchers acknowledge that this kind of active participation affects a person's thought patterns, at least in the short term.


    Another factor that concerns both researchers and parents is that violence in video games is often rewarded rather than punished. In army and sniper games, players "level up" based in part on how many people they kill. If played frequently enough, games like this can skew a young person's perception of violence and its consequences."


    So much for the context of this discussion.



    I did not realize that you were trying to derail the thread with off-topic stuff about video game addiction.
    :ugh: Great. Really great. I forgot to post this with the list of your favourite "how do I weasel around having to respond to posts I really don't like to answer" tactics.



    Thanks for the links.
    No, thank you.
  3. You said that video games have "some effect". Great. What is it?



    "Of course, all gamers are not addicts – many teens can play video games a few hours a week, successfully balancing school activities, grades, friends, and family obligations. But for some, gaming has become an uncontrollable compulsion. Studies estimate that 10 percent to 15 percent of gamers exhibit signs that meet the World Health Organization’s criteria for addiction. Just like gambling and other compulsive behaviors, teens can become so enthralled in the fantasy world of gaming that they neglect their family, friends, work, and school."






    "A recent article published in the journal Psychological Science indicates that youth in the United States may be at risk for addiction to video games. According to a 2007 Harris poll of 1,178 American children and teens (ages 8 to 18), 8.5 percent of those who played video games exhibited six of 11 addiction symptoms. These symptoms included skipping household chores or homework to play video or computer games, poor performance on tests, and playing video games to escape problems.


    Experts are comparing video game addiction to other pathological non-substance related behaviors like compulsive gambling. Researchers at Iowa State University, who conducted the study, actually utilized gambling addiction criteria to help develop the self-administered questionnaire. Currently no clinical diagnosis exists for video game addiction.


    In general, boys exhibited a greater number of addictive symptoms than girls. Boys tended to exhibit two or more of the 11 symptoms, while girls were more likely to show two or fewer. In addition to the symptoms listed above, other symptoms of gaming addiction exhibited by youth who played video games includes excessive thinking about playing games, excessive planning for the next opportunity to play, trying to play less and failing to do so, becoming restless or irritable when trying to play less or stop playing, lying about how much they play, and stealing a game or stealing money to buy a game."






    "In an April 21 article on the TimesOnline website, technology correspondent Mike Harvey reported that Prof. Gentile's research had yielded the following statistics:

    * Just under 90 percent of survey respondents reported playing video games.

    * The average boy in the survey spent 16.4 hours a week playing games, while the average for girls was just over nine hours every week.

    * The average "addicted" gamer played 24 hours a week -- twice as much as casual gamers.

    * 8.5 percent of the young gamers exhibited "pathological patterns of play," which was described as the presence of at least six of the 11 clinical symptoms (as defined by the American Psychiatric Association).

    * One-fourth of the surveyed gamers reported turning to video games in an attempt to escape problems, and nearly as many said they played instead of doing homework.

    * Twenty percent of the young video game enthusiasts said that their schoolwork had suffered because of the time they spent playing the games.


    ScienceDaily noted that the young people whose behavior rose to the level of video game addiction were more likely than were non-pathological players to report the following:


    * Having game systems in their bedrooms

    * Receiving poor grades in school

    * Feeling "addicted" to game systems

    * Experiencing a higher than normal number of health problems

    * Stealing to support their video game habit


    "While the medical community currently does not recognize video game addiction as a mental disorder, hopefully this study will be one of many that allow us to have an educated conversation on the positive and negative effects of video games," Prof. Gentile said in the TimesOnline article."






    "But it begs the question: Which comes first? Can aggressive and violent behavior be attributed to violence in video games? Or do those who play already have violent tendencies which draw them to violent games? It's a type of "chicken or the egg" debate that has strong advocates on both sides.


    Though video games made their appearance in the 1970s, it wasn't until systems like the Sony PlayStation were released in the 1980s that violence became an issue. Along with these more sophisticated systems came the ability to make graphics more lifelike. The more lifelike they've become, the more interest there has been in the correlation between violent games and violent behavior.


    One of the primary concerns with violence in video games is that gaming is not passive. In order to play and win, the player has to be the aggressor. Rather than watching violence, as he might do on television, he's committing the violent acts. Most researchers acknowledge that this kind of active participation affects a person's thought patterns, at least in the short term.


    Another factor that concerns both researchers and parents is that violence in video games is often rewarded rather than punished. In army and sniper games, players "level up" based in part on how many people they kill. If played frequently enough, games like this can skew a young person's perception of violence and its consequences."




    "Short-term effects were easily identified in the GAM; the most prominent being that violent games change the way gamers interpret and respond to aggressive acts. Even those who aren't predisposed to aggression respond with increased hostility after playing a violent video game. The game becomes what's called a "situational variable" which changes the perception of and reaction to aggressive behavior.


    Long-term effects of violent video games are still uncertain and are fiercely debated. No long-term studies have been conducted to date, so there are only hypotheses. Anderson and Bushman theorized that excessive exposure to violent video games causes the formation of aggressive beliefs and attitudes, while also desensitizing gamers to violent behaviors."






    "While occasional use of video games is harmless and may even help with some disorders like autism, doctors said in extreme cases it can interfere with day-to-day necessities like working, showering or even eating.


    "Working with this problem is no different than working with alcoholic patients. The same denial, the same rationalization, the same inability to give it up," Dr. Thomas Allen of the Osler Medical Center in Towson, Maryland.


    Dr. Louis Kraus of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and a psychiatrist at Rush University Medical Center, said it is not yet clear whether video games are addictive.


    "It's not necessarily a cause-and-effect type issue. There may be certain kids who have a compulsive component to what they are doing," he said in an interview.


    But addictive or not, too much time spent playing video games takes away from other important activities.


    "The more time kids spend on video games, the less time they will have socializing, the less time they will have with their families, the less time they will have exercising," Kraus said.


    "They can make up academic deficits, but they can't make up the social ones," he said."



  4. Not sure how you figure you're doing so with these non-starters, but you keep on telling yourself whatever you want, Rayston.
    Welcome to the world of animated GIF, Herr Rocket-Science!



    Oh, you're confused?


    Allow me to help.

    Please, allow me to help.





    Argument: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion
    You forgot to mention that the conclusion of your "argument" of "situational violence" was neither based on logic, reality, nor, and that's my favourite: any source. Thumbs up for being coherent so far, though.



    My comment that your post did not contain an argument was an attempt to politely point out that you typed a lot of words without actually saying anything meaningful.
    While this is getting more and more away from being on topic-- you still pull the same lame tactics, apparently. You come up with something and every time you find it rebutted, you go like "but that's not an argument", "rana rana burden of proof", or, and here's my favourite again, "that's not valid because you did not provide any sources". This behaviour from your side is near being a troll. Additionally, your "attempt to politely point out that ..." was surely anything but polite.
  5. GTA:SWcity, I did never say any game did ever make anyone go out and kill someone, nor do I say they ever will. I am not saying violence in games "corrupts" our youth (which is the very question of this tread), it is just that in my opinion those games do have an effect on people, young or not. I did not even say those effects are negative. Everybody seems to be like "these games do nothing to anybody", and I think this is not true.




    While not at me...

    Red herring (possbily bordering on ad hominem--in which case read the rules)?




    This isn't an argument.
    Oh, first you come up with how "situational" violence is and when I show you how it is not it's suddenly not an argument any more.


    Are you just trying to +1 your post count, or do you intend to contribute something to the thread?
    even if one replaces my posts here with duck poo I'll have contributed more value to this thread than you ever will :rolleyes:
  6. Like it to be the truth? :confused: It is a part of society, not society on the whole. Its effects _can_ be negated and managed like any other external medium which requires being acted upon in order to have any effect. That doesn't mean parents have absolute control or that a child won't try to hide things; if you're vigilant though, then not much will get by you.


    I'm not exactly sure what's the deal with the turn of phrase--would you care to explain what you meant by that???

    wishful thinking



    Since you seem to need it spelled out to you, I shall do it, lest you misinterpret what I said again. No, I was not at all saying that the parents should turn away from doing their job.
    Oh, I think I got you quite right, however--


    The "choice to turn away" is related usage of the object of indulgence.

    Idea of:

    situation; The object is doing harm?

    solution; *Stop* using it, then.


    Of course in this situation, we have kids who wouldn't choose to stop indulging (playing), so it is up to the parents to pry their childrens' hands from the controllers/keyboards/etc. when enough is enough.

    It sounds so easy, doesn't it? Especially the part where I make my kids unable to use any controller/keyboard/computer outside of their home.



    Firstly you weren't in the shooter's head--how would you know that? Did you actually know someone who was a school shooter?
    Oh, err, then how can you know that:

    People eventually realize "hey, these games might be fun but I'm not really going anywhere in my life" and decide to get up and get out.


    I'd say if you gonna take that guess for "non-shooter-people", I can as well say it's true for "shooter-people".



    Secondly I think you are making Columbine out to be... much more commonplace than it actually is/was.



    I was an angry child. I got in nasty fights right on up to adulthood. Despite it all, though, I just really wanted to be who I was and came to realize if other people are ********ed up--that is *their* problem. Not mine. My parents had no control over how nasty other kids were to me.
    Did they have control how nasty you were to other kids?



    Consider that an option if you believe the school system your children go to is not adequate, and in your judgment doing real harm. You'll find a way, I've no doubt of it given the concern you've already shown.
    So far I have not yet shown any 'concerns' about any school system?




    Because shootin' biotches wit yo AK would seem to only have context if you have an AK. Grabbin' a perp by the collar and shoving him up against a cop car would probably only have context if I had a perp (and a cop car).


    Of course, I'm only speculating...just as you are.

    Odd, I thought the violence attribute would mainly focus on "shootin' biotches" and "grabbin' a perp by the collar and shoving him up against a" instead of determining product numbers and typical use of involved items.



    I think the difference here is that I realize it and you don't.
    how about realising my butt, fancy pants :dozey:
  7. When an equation doesn't work to describe a physical phenomenon the way it's ought to describe it, it doesn't mean the least maths or its laws have failed. The equation is wrong or insufficient, which is a huge difference, actually.

  8. 3. The sun will rise tomorrow.
    It did not rise even once, ever. Having Earth orbiting around the Sun, both are always on the same 'level'.



    4. I am the biological son of my mother and father.
    If you're not the offspring of those who you call father and mother, that doesn't mean anything, you're still the biological son of your biological parents, always.



    5. Mathematics is 100% reliable.
    By definition, it is.
  9. Yes, but there is a system and there has always been a system in place to keep unwanted materials out of children’s hands and control the amount unwanted material a child is exposed to. It is called parenting and has nothing to do with the government control.


    It is just easier for the parents to use these mediums as a means of surrogate babysitter. This is just hideous to comprehend. Parents need to be the one’s that monitor what their child is involved in. They need to understand their child’s like and dislikes, they need to understand his/her fears and dreams. Parents just need to play the larger role in their own child’s development and not depend on media outlets including game developers to protect their child. After all, since we are all different, we should not depend on a stranger to know if something is appropriate for little Johnny, his parents should know him well enough to make that decision.

    Don't get me wrong, you are absolutely correct about parents and their responsibilities. That said, I honestly would prefer if there was some kind of parents licence in some cases, actually. :p


    But parents cannot teach 'society' to their kids. They can teach moral values, social behaviour, language, any kind of skill, all that jazz, yes. Parents can prepare their kids for many, many things. But the fun thing about offspring is, there's a certain dynamic you cannot control. Like you can say a thousand times don't touch this it is hot, and you can take care like hell, one out of those fifty little creatures will touch it. There are influences you cannot control. On the playground, in the kindergarten, at school. My kids are at the kindergarten 5 days a week for about 6 hours each day. I have no absolute control about what they eat and when, if they take a nap after lunch or what words they hear or say. This is where influence by anyone but the parent side begins.


    I don't blame or bitch, I just say that there's a long list of things which form a human character, and movies and games, media (containing whatever material) in general are part of it, and to me it sounds not to far fetched when I say violence (and anything else for that matter) in the media gives ideals and ideas to the young people, which might not always be 'caught' ideally by the parents.




    Having said that, even as much a part of society and as influential as they are, their effects can be effectively supervised and negated regarding child development.
    Yeah, you and me, we both would like this to be the truth. :p



    So while it is everywhere in our society, there is a choice to turn away.
    Turning away is a *bad* idea, really. Eventually you'll have to cope with everything that does not fit into your parental plan. Otherwise you will have problems.



    It is but the environment have varying degrees relative to source of influence. People eventually realize "hey, these games might be fun but I'm not really going anywhere in my life" and decide to get up and get out.
    Odd, that's exactly what some school shooter's thoughts might have been...




    This is an attempt to shift the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue that violent games do have an effect, I'm perfectly willing to listen to whatever they have to say (in fact, I'm quite interested in what a legitimate study would show). However it is on the parties making the claim that there is an effect to show what that effect is. Otherwise, we're just guessing.
    So, you'd argue that when you do things over and over again, that does not has any effect at all? That'd make me wonder what any kind of training is for, then. Wait, you mean it only works for non-violent stuff? Ah,.. then it makes sense.



    Which would seem to posit that there is some benefit to these devices (???). Do you have a source for this?
    Oh, I said benefit? Oop.



    If I play games and my friends play games, that makes us "gamers", not "mass murders".
    You seem not to fit into the scheme of "our youth", actually.



    Even if we pile on violence in TV, movies, music, etc, I think we have to admit that a lot of this violence is situational.
    And, that makes a difference exactly how?



    I think seeing your dad beat your mom IRL one time is going to be a lot more damaging than a million hours of "shooting" pixels shaped like zombies.
    And luckily enough, there's nothing but zombie and alien shooters available on the market, too!!



    One of these situations is modeling behavior while the other is clearly fantasy.
    And luckily enough, never do especially young people never mix up reality and fantasy ever as well!!
  • Create New...