Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vogue
The Burned Church
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 23:30:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Vogue on 16/06/2009 23:35:57 Edited by: Vogue on 16/06/2009 23:33:51 What a load of tosh. I have been to 1200 player lan parties where internet clannies are blasting the crap out of each other in fps games. In the bar after there is much revelry and fun banter. But never has there been a fight.
You go into a pub with football hooligans. They have their andrenaline levels pumped up and are not averse to a punch up. Why because they have a BS male machismo personna that thrives in violence. They dont play fps games anywhere near to the extent internet clannies do.
The average net geek is a benign type that does not have a dysfunctional male machismo personality type. And is capable enough to differentiate between virtual environments and real life strife and violence.
I like violence in computer games as it lets me blow steam off. I am tall and can handle myself but i have never been in a fight since school.
Your premise has a gaping hole about male psychology. Its not to do with violence in computer games or films but about the environment males are brought up in. If its means streets or areas where white working class manufacturing has been destroyed you will find a pattern of identity crisis in males that leads to ghetto gang culture, dysfunction and violence.
|
Knopje
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 00:24:00 -
[62]
I was thinking of this drivel and something struck me. Is Dr. Roy Meadows a Goon?
Sir Roy Goon.
|
Kalahari Wayrest
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 03:22:00 -
[63]
Quote: Incidentally, in this same experiment it was found that female students from both groups blasted their opponents longer and louder than the male students. Does this mean then that there is evidence that women are more aggressive than men?
Yes!
*quietly leaves thread* __________________________ Indulge Me Consider Yourself Indulged - Immy ♥ Wow immy scored - Xorus
|
Dapto
Minmatar Dissolution Of Eternity Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 03:47:00 -
[64]
I think the point you miss is real life is far more violent. If the Guys that play eve from the armed forces (active service)were able to tell you what they've seen it would be many times worse than any video game. Yes these games desensitizes you but isnt that a benifit to cope with the violent world be live in. |
Dungar Loghoth
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 04:01:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 17/06/2009 04:01:58
Originally by: Dapto I think the point you miss is real life is far more violent.
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth The victim effect- This is a permutation of GerbnerÆs ômean worldö syndrome, where the world is viewed as a scarier, more violent place as a result of exposure to violent media. GerbnerÆs cultivation theory, while weak on its ability to posit audience agency and ability to ôreadö texts as Hall and later theorists would posit, is nonetheless supported by evidence regarding increases in violent behavior in violent media consumers.
Quote: If the Guys that play eve from the armed forces (active service)were able to tell you what they've seen it would be many times worse than any video game. Yes these games desensitizes you but isnt that a benifit to cope with the violent world be live in.
Please see every post I made in this thread explaining why video-games as a coping mechanism isn't healthy. |
Evthron Macyntire
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 05:55:00 -
[66]
Self control and personal responsibility, or lack thereof.
There I just tl;dr the thread. I also didn't read it. ------------------------------ Sigs like this. |
Cpt Placeholder
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 06:37:00 -
[67]
You wanna build a better society by banning violent games ? try starting with alcohol, cigarettes, politicians, greed, etc, etc... There is no "social illness" other than Humans. Games in any form are certainly a minor evil.
|
Bestofworst
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 07:43:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Cpt Placeholder You wanna build a better society by banning violent games ? try starting with alcohol, cigarettes, politicians, greed, etc, etc... There is no "social illness" other than Humans. Games in any form are certainly a minor evil.
Humans are the illness. Violence is the cure. ---- My Music |
Jastra
Gallente Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 08:06:00 -
[69]
When I was a kid I played cowboys and indians, but grew up with a profound respect for native peoples
I read Commando magazine, played with toy soldiers, made models of fighter planes and tanks - played soldier with my mates, had numerous toy guns, bows and arrows, and even when I got older an airgun
Since computers arrived I've played video games - which to make me feel bad makes like 30 years of sitting in front of a screen blowing stuff up...
I am a well adjusted father, who agnoises over whether my kid will play with the same stuff, abhores RL violence, stopped voting labour when we went to Iraq and see ABSOLUTELY no relation with what I do in a game compared to what I do in real life, one is made up computer pixels, the other actually matters.....
I think there is a case for certain games like manhunter being consideed carefully before they are on the market but in general and in the round games are not detrimental to my social well being - in the same way violent war/spy/sci fi books and TV do not have that effect either |
KaiH
Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 10:09:00 -
[70]
now what?
9/10 pubbies seem to see right through you dungar.
PS: check out prototype its p. sweet
|
|
WormSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 11:57:00 -
[71]
A few questions:
Isn't the nature of playing any game in general to primarily find a method of wasting time, rather then perfecting your specific craft of violence creation in rl.
Or,
Aren't games used as a experience gathering tool for the player, so they can develop and modify different thoughts/experiences they wouldn't of accumulated in rl. Thus, video games giving people a early entry into different modes of thought.
Or,
Isn't violence already 'in the blood', and its directly represented in the form of society, by what it is that we do and teach each new generation of what was done before it.
The histories prove the point that violence is here to stay unless technology will be our ultimate salvation and it finds a path for us to take where violence is no longer a viable solution to a problem.
Peace,
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 12:07:00 -
[72]
9/10 troll.
You fail to get 10/10 because you intentionally confuse cause and effect. It's not violent videogames that CAUSE violence, it's the violent human nature that causes the need for violent videogames (in the absence of other things to "release" the violent tendencies).
Do violent video games help reduce the violence level in some people ? Yes. Do violent video games increase the violence level in some other people ? Yes. Can you certainly say violent videogames are a significant cause for real-life violence ? NO.
|
Anyura
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 12:09:00 -
[73]
It's people such as the OP that are the reason why I loathe psychologists and pushers of other psuedo-scientific claptrap.
You sit there, spouting pointless statistic after pointless statistic, claiming that these are incontrovertable proof that computer games encourage violence and evil. Let me ask you something - of the people in that survey, how many of them have ever been subjected to a bad experience like bullying, discrimination or abuse? I'm willing to bet it's quite a lot. Many of them will turn to video games as a means of escaping real life and many of those games will be violent. You cannot sit there and cheerfully claim on the flimsiest of evidence that violent computer games are one of the prime motivational causes of increased violent tendancies, when in all probability, there could be *hundreds* of other reasons why.
Its the same **** they try and use when they say eating a strawberry yoghurt will reduce the risk of cancer. "We did a survey and we found that those who eat strawberry yoghurts have a lower chance of cancer than those that don't". So that single strawberry yoghurt can help turn the tide against cancer? Bull****. The problem with surveys like these is that *they do not cover every single aspect, just one tiny fragment that they are interested in* and because the statistics happen to match up then yipee, we can go around claiming it as *fact*.
Just one single human life is a rich tapestry of joy and tragedy and then the OP comes along, looks at one small thread and suddenly claims they know the whole picture.
Gtfo.
On another note, I love the post about rocks and laser pointers |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 12:12:00 -
[74]
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. http://xkcd.com/552
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Hoodlums Associates
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 12:15:00 -
[75]
I have a much easyer explanation.
People use it as an excuse hoping to get less time in jail and the do gooders who yap this are on the same level as those who insist we never landed on the moon.
Problamo solved |
Drunk Driver
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 12:54:00 -
[76]
SOMETHING IS WRONG!
I play violent video games but I'M STILL BEING NICE TO CATS!!!!!
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 13:02:00 -
[77]
Edited by: RedSplat on 17/06/2009 13:05:24 EDIT: Okay, i digressed a little, so sue me. Some idiot woman screaming at here kid on the train has me riled.
EDIT2: I still havent set fire to my cat or Microwaved small rodents for fun, but i am a Pirate in EVE online. Is it only matter of time before i start ganking od ladies?
No.
But bad parents that need a scapegoat so they dont guilt trip themselves that its thier fault little Timmy brough a knife to school and neurotic soccer mums whom are otherwise excellent parents but jump as shadows like to think they are- and are a cause of such.
Would i be happy letting a future kid or sibling or relation play EVE if they were under 16? No.
This is a mature game, having kids running around in it lacking the emotional maturity and grasp of reason i would hope someone over the age of 16 would be starting to develop is not something i ever want to see; sure there are exceptions. They are just that, exceptions- and a serious minority.
Then again i wouldnt let them play games rated 18 until they are at least 16 or watch violent films as kids.
Too many Chameleonic political point scoring politicians in the UK associate videogames with promoting RL violence thanks to the failings of a few individuals and the bucolic stupidity of certain types o constituent.
You need a license to drive and own Firearms in the UK, but not to attempt to raise a kid. That sometimes seems odd to me when i see some of Englands mothers. |
Anyura
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 13:05:00 -
[78]
I know what you mean Red. I think it was Terry Pratchett who suggested once that would-be parents should be forced to sit an exam, aside from the practical. |
Knopje
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 14:24:00 -
[79]
Originally by: KaiH now what?
9/10 pubbies seem to see right through you dungar.
PS: check out prototype its p. sweet
Branigan
BANNED
Troll got banned from the biggest troll site on the planet.
BLowtax's idea is nearly as clever as Ron Hubbard, get people to pay and then ban them. You Goons are seriously the best trolls. |
Ratchman
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 14:55:00 -
[80]
I would try and argue the point against Dungar's argument more, but I think I'll check on my severed head collection. |
|
Ademaro Imre
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 18:08:00 -
[81]
There is no doubt that video game contribute to desensitizing humans to violence, but games can not be blamed for the cause, or even part cause. I learned how to kill someone, and get away with it, and what crimes labs would look for, when I owned a Commodore 64 - not from playing with little 256bit sprites, but from TV shows.
The greatest military invention was pop-up targets. Before WWII, soldiers did not desire to kill other people, and they never did desire, and were as a whole, hesitant to pull the trigger if they knew they would kill someone. As the US military moved from bullseye targets for scoring to silhouette targets of human torso's, the rate of soldiers willing to use their weapons to kill increased significantly during the war. Somewhere during or after the Korean War, pop-up targets were introduced. Soldiers were being endowed with instincts to shoot whatever popped up, so that engaging the enemy was no longer a deliberate intention, but a simple reaction. Pop-up targets were even equipped with devices to simulate the effects of a human target being hit with a bullet so that to the shooter, there would be a less viceral reaction to the gore of war. The lethality of soldiers on the battlefield dramatically improved with pop-up targets which trained soldiers to react. The ability of soldiers to fire during actual battles went from 50% at the outset of the Korean War to over 97% during the Vietnam War. Any poster here that served in a modern military, can say that pop-up targets made them a betetr, faster shooter where they can shoot first, and maybe ask questions later.
Pop-up targets are like video game first person shooters. FPS's train one to react. You react, you see the gore. Video games do desensitize humans, but to what effect can not really be measured such as in the environment of a battlefield where psychologists are surveying soldiers before and after wars and battles (which was done to complete these studies for the US Army since WWII). There are TV shows everyday that describe murder, robberies and crime and a general societal disregard that human cans grow up not even caring about others before they even see a video game. I am going to make the assumption that video games are not prevalent in Africa, where the greatest concentration of teenagers are armed with main battle rifles to kill each other. |
Dapto
Minmatar Dissolution Of Eternity Event Horizon.
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 19:20:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Dapto on 17/06/2009 19:21:39 I heard a story about a year ago that in the USA single women over 40 were up in arms over men my ageish (48) playing computer games and wanted to ban them all using this exact excuse. The real reason is us guys have no interest in going out and possibly meeting them. Well i've been married twice and take taken to the cleaners both times do you (they) honestly think I'd be stupid enough to do it again?
Get it through your Head lady(s) I dont want to date you.
I wish to play eve as its got a block button Dapto |
Drunk Driver
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 19:26:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ratchman I would try and argue the point against Dungar's argument more, but I think I'll check on my severed head collection.
Laughed out loud.....
|
Nuala Reece
Caldari Pilots of Damnation death from above..
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 21:09:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth
Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abstracts/2000-2004/01ab.pdf
Research on exposure to television and movie violence suggests that playing violent video games will increase aggressive behavior. A meta-analytic review of the video-game research literature reveals that violent video games increase aggressive behavior in children and young adults. Experimental and nonexperimental studies with males and females in laboratory and field settings support this conclusion. Analyses also reveal that exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal and aggression-related thoughts and feelings. Playing violent video games also decreases prosocial behavior.
It's an interesting read Dungar, although it appears to date back to 2001 so I thought you'd be interested to see another review from 4 years later Linkage. These are the reports findings; I've highlighted a few of the points that seem to relate to some of the assertions you've made:
"This review broadly endorses the findings of the 2001 Home Office Review;
"The research evidence of a direct link between video games and violent behaviour in society remains contradictory;
"There is an inherent difficulty in researching this area and in isolating one causal factor (in this instance playing violent video games) in any violent social behaviour;
"There is a body of evidence that playing violent video games increases arousal and the possibility of aggression in some players. However, this evidence is often disputed and cannot be simply read as evidence that game playing translates into violent social behaviour;
"There is also evidence to suggest that game playing can encourage positive learning traits in young people;
"Despite the long history of media effects research, there is a paucity of credible original research in the particular area of video games and violence;
"The vast majority of the research which argues a direct link between playing violent games and violent behaviour has been carried out in North American from within the discipline of psychology; there is relatively little or no distinctively UK research in this area;
"The North American research seems somewhat oblivious to the (mostly European) social science research on media effects that suggests the importance of particular context in explaining violent behaviour;
"The demographics of game players has changed over the years, with gamers often much older than is often portrayed in media reporting (in the US evidence puts the average age of a gamers at 29), yet there is very little research into the impact of playing computer games on adults (Griffiths, 2004)." |
The Wintersmith
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 22:23:00 -
[85]
Violent video games don't kill people.
Americans do. |
NeoNeTiC
LOCKDOWN. Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 06:05:00 -
[86]
It's kind of sad to see all the "you're a troll" posts when someone's trying to be the devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.
I originally prepared a massive wall of text post about social structure of todays society and a portion of evolution theory and philosophy but I decided to make an EVE-example of what I'm trying to say. Let's take a fancy de-tour into the concept of media and its influence.
Let's look at your average 0.0 alliance. 90% of the alliance's member base is made of peons who follow the FCs' or leaderships' orders. I'm not saying they don't influence stuff or don't decide where to roam, what to produce, when to mine but it's all following guidlines and a greater goal set by someone "up high". Most of them enjoy what they're doing and only few aspire to take a leading position themselves.
Now, the peon might enjoy the industry side of EVE but gets slapped for NPCing/mining during a major capital fleet op. He'll then either give in and from then on show up in a crappy ship to appear on killmails as requested or disregard the alliance leadership's orders and continue with what he does. In a "perfect" world the alliance leadership would then kick him/force him out.
Since EVE is supposed to be fun, the peon, who got slapped for doing what he enjoys, will venture forth and find a group of people which suck less, according to his standards. He'll mostlikely base his choice on input regarding the gameplay possibilities within EVE gathered through forums, videos, chat with other players, corp advertisements or discovering it by himself. All created content by someone else to influence perception/opinion/experience/knowledge - also known as "media" of some sort.
If you convert this to real life where the risk/consequences are of far greater extent, one might not always be able to say "**** this, I'll do something else now" and thus start getting unhappy and live an unfulfilled life.
Since I spoke of a focus of interests within EVE: Most people starting can not decide what's fun and what not and will create a random char and start exploring a few profession. Some initially pick mining and regret it (like myself) or go combat and then change to trade/industry/whatever. There is no penalty (besides lost time) for switching "professions" in EVE - that's why it's fun. There lies the biggest difference to the real world on the other hand. You start with the same lack of a clue and just have other people's reaction to your behaviour and your hopefully well-rounded basic education while evolving into something resembling a decent being - by others judgement.
When you grow up in a personal world made of violence (not just spaceships on the internets going poof but domestic violence, a war zone, opressed country, whatever) you might become more receptable to media's nudge when it hits you in the right moment. This also goes in a positive way - living a life in total security and devoid any kind of fear means input from things outside of your head do not bring you out of balance completely.
To finally come back to the issue: When you now censor media, be it games, books, movies, songs, etc. you do this to cut down on the risks which may evolve from exposing someone unstable to them and thus prevent "further issues" for other people. I don't support the current "let's ban games where stuff dies"-agendas but I can understand which concern drives those in charge. The full consequence would be total censorship of everything, including news, though since they may be the right nudge to do something you'd normally not do. This is quite far from reality for me since humans are nothing but animals with the ability for abstract thinking imho and denying it won't solve the issue itself. Hate, murder, genocide are all basic functions of life and evolution - and nothing can stop that.
tl;dr: Gaming is fine, human nature is just ****ed up.
|
goodby4u
Valor Inc. Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.06.18 06:39:00 -
[87]
I forget who said this, but I am reminded of a quote I heard a while back(probably in a book, maybe 1984?).
"The first step to socialism is the control of communication".
Censorship is just this, and while I don't want this to turn into a political debate, I am outright 100% against censorship of media outlets and most other communications based publications including video games and the internet. No I am not naive, I understand our current media ain't anywhere near perfect, but in America at least the freedom of the press is something difficult to crush.
Why am I saying this? Well if you censor video games for being violent, you must also censor other media outlets for being violent otherwise your at risk of being a total hypocrite. This means television, the internet, the papers, photos coming back from the war, and televised news outlets... Because if violence in video games can make you violent then so can any other media(hell the precedent this can set could even lead to censorship of speech in general).
Say I am overreacting if you will, but I get angry when parents, kids, and even the general public look to the government to solve their problems for them rather then solving it themselves, because the government is not a surgical tool to remove only the "bad parts of something" but a broadsword that normally takes things way too far.
Now, the problem with these studies are people aren't equal, to explain we don't react the same way to everything(due to genetics, upbringing, surroundings and otherwise) so it is typically impossible to get an accurate reading, not to mention they didn't do the study properly. They didn't study a group that has never played video games before vs a group that has played video games all their lives, nor did they actually ask the kids to be violent to one another(the loud noises thing wtf?) they simply saw which group was more annoying.
To what he was saying about us being idiots because we use ourselves as proof, I don't know anything about the background of the person doing the study, but in scientific method one must test theories before they become fact, and since it doesnt pass for me personally(I do not kill people, hell I can count on one hand how many fistfights I have gotten in in my life) his theory in my situation is flawed.... And if the OP were to do the same test on himself(seeing as he does infact play a violent game) he would probably find that the same thing applies to him.
Long story short, parents need to read the box the video game comes in, stop giving little billy whatever he wants, be more individualistic and stop playing devils advocate.
Also, I apologize if this post made no sense at all, had a long day, kinda ****ed off and pretty tired.
EDIT:What is with the making me log in 3 or 4 times to write a post? Thank God I had the right of mind to copy this post before pressing the reply button. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |