Do violent video games corrupt our youth?

[kipperthefrog]

Article

 

 

 

I wouldn't insult a kid's intellegence by claiming that he can't tell video games from real life. As for the study that claims the video game kids are more aggresive, it could be that the kids are frustrated due to the dfficulty of the games or hyped up by spending too much time on them.

 

 

90% of U.S. kids 8-16 are plaing video games, and theres been only a handfull of school shooters. plus, there were school shootings before video games were invented. How does Jack Thompson's "experts" explain that?

[Totenkopf]

Well, if you watched BULL****!, Penn & Teller also reveal that the worst case of school violence preceded vid games by several decades and didn't involve guns, but explosives. Guess people gotta bitch about something.

[Darth Avlectus]

There is good reason it isn't sold to kids.

 

Having said that, none of this stuff has ever caused someone to "go over the edge" so to speak. Not if they weren't already likely to do so in the first place. So it depends on mental well being, as well as parental guidance. If the kid goes and kills because of VGs or music, the kid already has problems which should be (or have been if in past tense) taken care of.

[Achilles]

Kipper,

 

The problem with these kinds of studies is that the methodology is typically either flawed or garbage. In order to establish a causal relationship, you have to be able to ratcheted down every variable except the one your testing for.

 

So all these kids play violent video games. Do they also watch violent movies? Television? What are their dietary habits? How much exercise are they getting? What are their parents like?

 

It is entirely possible that the video games are the culprit (I highly doubt it, but it is possible). However unless you can rule out every other possible cause, you can't say with any certainty that this is it.

 

Since the article talks about the study but offers only vague details about the methodology, it's impossible to tell if the research is even remotely valid. It sounds as though you're pretty skeptical of their findings as well

[kipperthefrog]

There is good reason it isn't sold to kids.

 

what is that good reason?

 

 

Having said that, none of this stuff has ever caused someone to "go over the edge" so to speak. Not if they weren't already likely to do so in the first place. So it depends on mental well being, as well as parental guidance. If the kid goes and kills because of VGs or music, the kid already has problems which should be (or have been if in past tense) taken care of.

 

Then you are in agreement with me.

[EnderWiggin]

Do violent video games corrupt our youth?

 

No.

 

[/thread]

 

_EW_

[mimartin]

It is easier to blame video games, television, movies, music, comic books… than to blame the problems with society and parenting.

[Darth Avlectus]

what is that good reason?

 

While I'm not censorist, I do believe in parental moderation/mediation. You'll eventually have to have those talks with your kids, but exposing them to prostitution, beatdowns, robbery car jacking, and crime while they're too young isn't exactly the way to go.

 

Do you really want junior being sent home in the middle of the day and having to meet with an irate principal because he's slamming other kids' heads in doors and wisecracking to a teacher about "plinking" a hooker in the car he stole form her?

--I think you get the point: only when you believe they are ready and can handle it responsibly.

 

Then you are in agreement with me.

Yeah, I am. And furthermore I think parents who completely blame VGs and rock music on their child's bad behavior need to take a look at themselves. Freedoms have responsibility, no?

 

If you've done your part as a parent and your kid is still acting up because of it, then take it away. If you haven't...that's where it starts. That's what I have observed from parents whose kids are exposed to that stuff, but they are not little monsters for it.

[Ray Jones]

No.

 

[/thread]

[/wrong]

 

 

 

It is easier to blame video games, television, movies, music, comic books… than to blame the problems with society and parenting.

 

 

So, video games, television, movies, music, comic books, etc, are not part of our society, and do in no way carry a potential to be problematic? Hm. Hm Hm.

[EnderWiggin]

[/wrong]

So, Rayston, you believe that video games are to blame for the children who perform school shootings, etc?

 

Rather than parenting or environment?

 

_EW_

[Ray Jones]

No, the games alone are not to blame. I mean, how to blame a game anyway. However, if you ask whether violent games have an effect on children, then seriously, how could they not? Or why would you think is there a huge industry shoving learning computers and learning games/programs down our throats?

 

And say, what is this environment? Your parents, what they teach you, what you see them doing? Friends you hang out with, their activities? Something like school, people at school? Your activities there? What you do in your freetime? Like, reading a book? Talking to people? Playing a game? Isn't this all the environment somehow?

[mimartin]

So, video games, television, movies, music, comic books, etc, are not part of our society, and do in no way carry a potential to be problematic? Hm. Hm Hm.

 

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.

[Totenkopf]

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.

 

Very true.

 

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.

 

Sad but also very true. And given the kinds of messages kids are bombarded with these days, parents' jobs are that much harder, but perhaps more important.

[Achilles]

However, if you ask whether violent games have an effect on children, then seriously, how could they not?

 

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.

 

Or why would you think is there a huge industry shoving learning computers and learning games/programs down our throats?

 

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

 

I think we're all aware that companies sometimes market products that consumers belief have some utility but actually don't (how much money does homeopathy rake in every year?).

 

So, video games, television, movies, music, comic books, etc, are not part of our society, and do in no way carry a potential to be problematic? Hm. Hm Hm.

 

Well sure. But I'm not sure what this is supposed to show us.

 

If I play games and my friends play games, that makes us "gamers", not "mass murders". 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. 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. One of these situations is modeling behavior while the other is clearly fantasy.

[Darth Avlectus]

So, video games, television, movies, music, comic books, etc, are not part of our society, and do in no way carry a potential to be problematic? Hm. Hm Hm.

 

They're a part of it, however they are little more than entertainment and influences, which even the most primitive rational minds realize (not that I'm calling *you* primitive mind you, just saying). These should not be a primary thing for children when growing up--otherwise you will have problems.

 

They do indeed carry potential to be problematic (I don't think anyone here is debating that point) and yes they are a part of society or else we wouldn't all be HERE in a Star Wars site discussing this. 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. That falls on the parents' shoulders because it does not preclude responsible decision making or parenting.

 

No, the games alone are not to blame. I mean, how to blame a game anyway. However, if you ask whether violent games have an effect on children, then seriously, how could they not? Or why would you think is there a huge industry shoving learning computers and learning games/programs down our throats?

 

OK, think of it like anything else (alcohol, firearms, etc.): it requires external influence in the first place for it to even have an effect. You already have a grasp of that. You have a point, yes they do have an effect. While it is ever-pervasive, it does not preclude one (or ones as in a family) from making decisions. So while it is everywhere in our society, there is a choice to turn away.

 

 

Frankly I think the gaming industry is running out of creative ideas like the TV industry did some time back. Games are beginning to take a turn towards major suckage and it'll be in a lull for a time. Why do you think there are so many re-hashes, reviews, and complaints that new games suck lately? I'd think they can't be alluring and all encompassing forever. I would actually be interested in what merited studies have to say about this.

 

And say, what is this environment? *brevity*

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.

 

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.

 

Thirded to this notion.

 

 

It is just easier for the parents to use these mediums as a means of surrogate babysitter. This is just hideous to comprehend.

 

I've seen families with parents who just don't care and leave it all to the babysitters and nannies. Dysfunctional. I shudder to think what will happen if/when the family starts leaving it to the VG systems.

 

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.

 

QFT.

 

And given the kinds of messages kids are bombarded with these days, parents' jobs are that much harder, but perhaps more important.

 

Yes. I think what should be dealt with is actually the bombardment issue. Since direct intervention seems to be interpreted as an attack on free market, it think it'll have to be dealt with by other means.

 

Speculation: We're coming up on a down trend of VG productions. During this period we may perhaps be seeing a certain number of our society become resistant to the influence and effects of video games, and an outright rejection to the VG culture in some cases. (I only wish I had data to support this!) Thoughts?

[Ray Jones]

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.

 

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.

 

 

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!!

[Achilles]

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.

 

Because it seems you need help

 

You seem not to fit into the scheme of "our youth", actually.

 

Believe it or not, I didn't hatch from an egg already at my current age.

 

And, that makes a difference exactly how?

 

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. I think the difference here is that I realize it and you don't.

 

And luckily enough, there's nothing but zombie and alien shooters available on the market, too!!

 

Way to skirt past the point there, Rayston.

 

And luckily enough, never do especially young people never mix up reality and fantasy ever as well!!

 

Indeed they sometimes do. Hence why I think we're seeing so much commentary on the importance of active participation on the part of parents.

[Darth Avlectus]

But parents cannot teach 'society' to their kids.

They can teach how to respond to universal issues that do come up.

 

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.

 

That doesn't mean you don't try to set the child straight when its behavior is incorrect. At this point, the parents must take a proactive role in making sure the child knows enough reasoning of actions and their consequences which follows in order to tell the good choices from the bad; responsible from irresponsible. It may be only basic logic, but it teaches the kids to reason because you will not always be there.

 

Teaching a kid to "consider a source for what it is" goes a long way for when you're not there as a parent. Longer way than I think you are willing to give credit. No, you can't be there all the time, hoever you can leave a lasting impression on your child in its youth so that it will make responsible decisions as it gets older.

 

Sometimes it is inevitable the offspring will have to learn the hard way. It's up to the parent to make sure that the hard stuff isn't something deadly, or of lifelong detriment.

 

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.

You might not be able to prevent all incidences, however, you can *manage* the ones that do come up. No child is clever enough to hide these influences completely from a parent who truly cares. Also, you can teach trust-worthiness.

 

On the other side of it, there is a certain openness needed if you are to minimize the rebelliousness of the offspring at a certain age. To make sure their complacency and resistance to you is not higher than your possible reach as a parent.

 

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.

 

Like it to be the truth? 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???

 

OK, think of it like anything else (alcohol, firearms, etc.): it requires external influence in the first place for it to even have an effect. You already have a grasp of that. You have a point, yes they do have an effect. While it is ever-pervasive, it does not preclude one (or ones as in a family) from making decisions. 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.

Clever, you can dance around the semantics pin.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Odd, that's exactly what some school shooter's thoughts might have been...

 

Can you spell P A R A N O I A ?

 

Firstly you weren't in the shooter's head--how would you know that? Did you actually know someone who was a school shooter?

 

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

 

So they were a couple kids who claimed they were bad souls? If the individual is a "bad soul" then all you can really do is your absolute best as a parent in that situation.

 

Can you look at your kindergarten aged kids and *really* see another Columbine in their future (perpetrated by them) for sure? Hmm?

 

I grew up in an adverse environment. 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. I suppose if it got too nasty they could have intervened and taken me out of the system. Found some alternative education.

 

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.

 

Besides, If I were just like those two columbine students, we wouldn't be talking. We'll just leave it at that.

[Ray Jones]

Like it to be the truth? 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.

Columbine?

 

 

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

[Darth_Yuthura]

Trying to keep video games out of the hands of children is becoming increasingly difficult as games become easier to obtain. When I was a kid, there were dozens of games available on Nintendo, PC, and a few on the MAC. Now there are literally thousands of them available at very cheap prices as they become obsolete. I have had only Apple-based video games all my life, so I hadn't had many options compared to those who had an N64, Sega, gamecube, playstation I,II,III, xbox (360)

 

The internet had become a source of easily-obtainable and free games. It allowed for online enhancement for getting game platforms, games to go with them, the fact that video games had become more common. They are highly addictive, widely available, and relatively cheap in comparison to what you could get with your money.

 

I only spent about $20 for KOTOR I and II, and much less for JA and JK II. I have no idea how many hours of entertainment I got from them, but it was worth it to me. In terms of how many hours I lost from my life because of them... that's another matter. The idea of restricting video games from children isn't really a realistic solution because there are now so many video game platforms and so many games out there that children will figure a way past parent supervision.

[Darth Avlectus]

wishful thinking

Gotcha.

 

It's not my job to tell you how to be a parent. I suggest, however, if you don't care to take a proactive role in your child's development to make sure your kids don't end up impersonating Niko Bellic or somesuch, put them up for adoption where they can get the supervision they need.

 

Oh, I think I got you quite right, however--

 

It sounds so easy, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Nor did I imply it was. Difficult as it is, it still has to be done.

 

Especially the part where I make my kids unable to use any controller/keyboard/computer outside of their home.

You appear to talk as if parents have no effect on their children over the inevitable outside influences. Why? I thought being the parent meant pretty much being all that child has to rely upon?

 

Are *you* having problems in these areas? Are your kids acting up because of these influences? Are you unable to get them to change their behavioral conduct? Otherwise, if the answer is no, I think you're going a bit too Nth degree in your speculation if that situation has not yet arisen.

 

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.

Because that's what people DO. You even did that--didn't you? There is more to life than pong, or super maro, or Liberty City as Niko Bellic, right?

 

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

Hair splitting much? Playing with semantics again? Where are you getting this rationale from?

 

Are you concerned your child is going to shoot the school up? Just a suggestion: while the child is still impressionable, you might show the consequences of actions related to such.

 

Columbine?

Well...You said earlier:

Odd, that's exactly what some school shooter's thoughts might have been...

That's what came to mind--Columbine. Were you referring to another school shooting?

 

If school shooting is not what you were referring to, then would you care to share what you were referring to? Were you implying I'm a homicidal maniac because "GTA" is in my username?

 

Did they have control how nasty you were to other kids?

Not directly, but in eventuality, yes they did. Teaching me perspective and what is realistic. Such actions did have consequences in the outside world. As well there were consequences within the home, as there should be. The more malicious what I did, the steeper the punishment was at home for me besides facing the school system or the law for what I did.

 

So far I have not yet shown any 'concerns' about any school system?

You've shown concern for influences outside your home. Most of that time (I would think) for children is spent primarily in school. Is your situation different?

 

If you home school your kids, do you not have any control whatsoever as to their other social/daily outings?

 

how about realising my butt, fancy pants

 

While not at me...

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

[Achilles]

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.

 

This isn't an argument.

 

Are you just trying to +1 your post count, or do you intend to contribute something to the thread?

[Te Je'karta Mand'alor]

violant games do not corrupt my youth! so die!!!!!

i've never been stressed out or angry from video games

[Darth_Yuthura]

This isn't an argument.

 

Are you just trying to +1 your post count, or do you intend to contribute something to the thread?

 

I always hate it when people do that. I hate how you could spend several minutes, or even an hour composing a response and you still get only one post under your belt. You just as easily could write something like this for another +1.

 

But this will have some content, so it won't be marked as spam.

 

I think that video games do inspire violence within children, but the issue is by much much it influences the child. Parents can influence their children and those who've never played a video game could simply be violent for other reasons.

 

I would say mario brothers isn't exactly a violent game, although it does have all the elements of one without the realism to it. Dark Forces was not bloody, but it had guns, grenades, and assault cannons. First person shooters are very inspirational to physical violence, but there are many others that direct violent tendencies in the wrong ways.

 

Flight simulators are not what I would call violent, but they do involve competition where one person is firing missiles and dropping bombs on enemy forces in order to kill or to survive. That's something to consider is the level upon which the violence is directed. Virtually anything that inspires people to want to hurt digital people is likely going to pour into their real lives to some degree.

[Achilles]

Virtually anything that inspires people to want to hurt digital people is likely going to pour into their real lives to some degree.

 

As I states earlier, I would be perfectly willing to accept this as true if there were solid studies (i.e. studies with sound methodologies, etc) that could show this to be true.

 

The problem I see with this conclusion is that there are far too many other possible factors that could go into explaining a phenomenon that doesn't even seem to be very clearly defined ("more violent" compared to what? When? Whose standards? Etc.)