Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

etc.

View
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

20. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 19:24 Tigger
 
Hey, nice way to change your post while I was driving home (I read your original and edited versions before I left work).

--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
Fixed my spacing.
This comment was edited on Aug 17, 19:25.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 17:23 K-Pac
 
I think it's insane if you think a 17 year old, hell, even a 10 year old based entirely on age alone can't make a judgement call of whether a video game is real or fake or that they're not mentally capable enough to know the difference.
I believe that youth can't make as good a judgement call as adults can BUT not to that extreme. That's just rediculous. I don't believe it to that extent. Anyways i'm through with this thread. End of story.


This comment was edited on Aug 17, 19:04.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 16:42 Tigger
 
I think this has to do with drug related problems amoungst other things with that age groups then with violent games.

No. The numbers aren't in for 2002, but between 1976-2000 Gang Related Homicide was number 1. Drug related was 4, accounting for 5.5%. You better not come back and say "I think" unless you have facts.

Exaclty, but should we bar all 17 year olds from everything that morons happen to sue over for supposedly "causing violence bullshit".

OK, slowly this time - and in plain English.

No. People that raise these lawsuits against games see them as evil or corrupting. They are neither. The issue at stake here (and always has been) whether people of this age are capable of either A) Make a judgment call whether it's real or fake OR B) Are sane enough to know the difference. For good measure, we can add C) Have enough guidence at home to help them with A or B.

REMEMBER - FACTS

I'm not going to respond unless you start to do a little research. I've already wasted more than enough good time checking my own than this is worth.


--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
This comment was edited on Aug 17, 17:19.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 15:52 K-Pac
 
"Quite a bit, actually."

That would have to be one major fucked-up judgement call then, i mean the kid would have to be out of his mind institutional wise i mean.

"People 17-19 account for the third largest age group of homicide offenders in the US in 2002."

I think this has to do with drug related problems amoungst other things with that age groups then with violent games.

"I know, thats my point. People sue over stupid shit today - and this is one of them."

Exaclty, but should we bar all 17 year olds from everything that morons happen to sue over for supposedly "causing violence bullshit".

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 14:25 Tigger
 
What the hell kind of judgement calls does a 17 year old have to make while playing Manhunt that deals with real life.

Quite a bit, actually. People 17-19 account for the third largest age group of homicide offenders in the US in 2002.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm

The bible and Shakespear's plays contain many extreme acts of violence that some people might be offended by and sue over for some stupid "it make a person violent" reason.

I know, thats my point. People sue over stupid shit today - and this is one of them.






--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
This comment was edited on Aug 17, 14:39.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 13:18 K-Pac
 
"Back to my point, seventeen-year-old kids should NOT be playing this game, because IF they are looney or can't make good judgment calls"

While i believe children, teenagers and young adults don't have the mental capacity to make AS GOOD A judgement call as adults in their mid-20s and up do, i don't see how failure to make good judgement calls has anything to do with playing violent games like Manhunt. What the hell kind of judgement calls does a 17 year old have to make while playing Manhunt that deals with real life. As for the being looney part, yeah that i can understand because mentally unstable screw-up people do crazy things, although if the game wasn't there for the the looney person he's just imitate or copy what he saw on T.V, read in a book, or even something he saw or heard about in real life instead.

"WE ALL LOSE. Mom and Dad call to have the game taken off the market. The courts and the people are sympathetic – I mean, he was only 17 years old. The kid couldn’t have possibly been unstable or misguided – no way. It’s ALWAYS the <insert ‘evil influence’ here>’s fault."

and

"But because this society is so full of suing each other for this problem or that, it's necessary to err on the side of caution."

I not going to argue these points with you, because while i don't agree, i do understand what you mean. Although i will ask you this question? In the case that some parents sue because they think the bible make their kid commit some act of violence. Should 17 year olds then not be able to read the bible? What about great literature like that of Shakespear. It some parents sue because they think Romero and Juliet make their kid commit suicide should 17 year olds not be able to read Shakespear's plays. The bible and Shakespear's plays contain many extreme acts of violence that some people might be offended by and sue over for some stupid "it make a person violent" reason.


This comment was edited on Aug 17, 13:46.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 09:54 Tigger
 
The theory that violent media causes violent behavior in youth. What else.

I NEVER said that violent media causes violence in children or teenagers. What I posted was a link that makes the argument that teenagers don't have the mental capability to make good judgment calls. Is that true of ALL teenagers, certainly not. Let me bold that so that you can read it:

Is that true of ALL teenagers, certainly not.

And let me bold the next part, so you’ll read that too:

But because this society is so full of suing each other for this problem or that, it's necessary to err on the side of caution.

And don't even get me started about that shit.

The article goes on to say that scientists believe that humans begin to have mental capacity and life experience to start making good judgment calls around their early 20s. Looking back on my life, I can certainly see that this may indeed be the case – as I made a fair number of bad judgment calls in my early 20s.

Back to my point, seventeen-year-old kids should NOT be playing this game, because IF they are looney or can't make good judgment calls, WE ALL LOSE. Mom and Dad call to have the game taken off the market. The courts and the people are sympathetic – I mean, he was only 17 years old. The kid couldn’t have possibly been unstable or misguided – no way. It’s ALWAYS the <insert ‘evil influence’ here>’s fault.

And what good does that do anyone? It doesn't do the publisher or the studio any good because they just spent a ton of cash making and putting the game out. I lose, because I like the game and want to play it and the 1st Amendment takes a beating because now it's OK to censor something that might be inappropriate for some part of the population. Let’s be honest, it isn't right for a 5-year-old to see porn, but it doesn't mean that they should suppress that form of media. And the same is true of video games. Just because some people can't distinguish between fantasy or reality, doesn't mean they should take it off the market.

Video games are the flavor of the month - expect it to be something else in the future. And we'll have the same arguments and fight the same battles when it was Dungeons and Dragons and heavy metal music- a few misguided crackheads ruined it for us all.




--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
Fixed my Amendments
This comment was edited on Aug 17, 10:31.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 09:12 K-Pac
 
"What theory? Careful now...think before you respond."

The theory that violent media causes violent behavior in youth. What else. Isn't that what you were talking about? If not what were you talking about in the last post to me?


This comment was edited on Aug 17, 09:16.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 09:09 Tigger
 
Silly Game? Sorry, but that thoery you talk about is a load of CRAP.

What theory? Careful now...think before you respond.

--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 08:49 K-Pac
 
Silly Game? Sorry, but that thoery you talk about is a load of CRAP.

There is no absolutly no proof whatsoever that media violence causes more violence in youth. I can't believe a person in this forum actually believes this shit. Who sent you here Lieberman.
NOW, SOME studies have shown that violent media MAY POSSIBLY cause an increase in agression in SOME children but these studies are extremely inconsitent, weak and easily put down.
For instance some studies have shown more agressive behavior after viewing non-violent childrens shows like Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. Also those studies you talk about don't measure real agression but proxies for real agression such as giving noise blasts, hitting Bobo dolls, popping balloons or how fast the subject can find agressive words going down on a computer screen. These studies are also done in closed-in lab setting were subjects know they can do behaviors they couldn't do in the real world.
In fact, I would say that these researchers are misinterpreting what is actually excitement in subjects with what they think is (or want to be) aggression. Many of these researchers go into these studies very biassed and so adamite in their belief that media violence actually causes real-life violence and aggression that it would be almost impossible that they couldn’t find something they could say fits their theory.

anyways i will post this link again. But now Read it:

http://www.fepproject.org/factsheets/mediaviolence.html

"But thats not realy the point."

Then what's your point.


This comment was edited on Aug 17, 09:10.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: No subject Aug 17, 2004, 07:13 Tigger
 
If you want to play the silly game of 'disprove a theory' we can, but then we will likely disprove your contention that media does not cause violence. But thats not realy the point.

--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones

This comment was edited on Aug 17, 07:27.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: No subject Aug 16, 2004, 23:08 K-Pac
 
The link and quote you provided about has absolutly nothing to do with games and media influence there Tigger. Also, don't you know that laberatory studies such as those in the link you provided can't prove shit. You have to test this stuff out in the real world.

Back to my original point, 17 isn't that big of a difference from 18. How a person thinks and how his/her brain works at 17 will most likely be the same way at 18. Unless you believe something magical happens at 18 that suddenly makes a person able to withstand having violent urgues from playing video games.


This comment was edited on Aug 16, 23:20.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. No subject Aug 16, 2004, 22:10 Pete
 
18 you can be tried as an adult, not with 17 right?

but id doesnt matter, people need scapegoats

DOOM3, i got my copy. what about you?
 
Doin' it Big
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Same old shit Aug 16, 2004, 22:00 Tigger
 
I hope your not pushing that whole violent video games cause such detrimental effects on kids crap.

And

But, re: Tigger's point, I'd imagine that if you are screwed up enough to be affected to the point of killing someone on account of playing a game, the idea that these urges will go away at your 18th birthday is laughable.

Sigh.

'Teen Brains on Trial'

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp

Age-related brain differences pack a real-world wallop, in his view. "From a biological perspective," Fassler asserts, "an anxious adolescent with a gun in a convenience store is more likely to perceive a threat and pull the trigger than is an anxious adult with a gun in the same store."




--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
This comment was edited on Aug 16, 22:02.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: What is wrong with this statement: Aug 16, 2004, 18:23 Tango
 
the kid was obviously screwball in the first place. While the death scenes were laughable in a ridiculous context, I thought the game was friggin' boring.
Agreed with both.
But, re: Tigger's point, I'd imagine that if you are screwed up enough to be affected to the point of killing someone on account of playing a game, the idea that these urges will go away at your 18th birthday is laughable.

Does anyone know if a 35 year old has ever killed and blamed it on a game?

 
Avatar 18712
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Same old shit Aug 16, 2004, 17:51 K-Pac
 
I hope your not pushing that whole violent video games cause such detrimental effects on kids crap. Anyways read here:

http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/freedman.html

http://www.fepproject.org/factsheets/mediaviolence.html

This comment was edited on Aug 16, 17:56.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Same old shit Aug 16, 2004, 16:05 Tigger
 
First off 17 isn't a kid anymore and second of all what's wrong with 17 year olds playing this game. How much more impressionable is a 17 year old then an 18 year old.

Anymore? I didn't know it stopped at some time in the past.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp

--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Same old shit Aug 16, 2004, 14:28 K-Pac
 
"17-year-old kids shouldn't be playing these games. Period."

First off 17 isn't a kid anymore and second of all what's wrong with 17 year olds playing this game. How much more impressionable is a 17 year old then an 18 year old. I'm pretty sure you played quite a few games like this before you turned 18 Tigger.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Same old shit Aug 16, 2004, 14:03 Tigger
 
She said her son's 17-year-old killer, who was allegedly obsessed with the game, had mimicked the Man Hunt video quest by carrying out a brutal killing."

I can't believe we are still having this discussion.

17-year-old kids shouldn't be playing these games. Period.


--
Tigger
"It's not the years, it's the mileage" ~Indiana Jones
This comment was edited on Aug 16, 14:04.
 
Avatar 7252
 
--
Tigger
Vic Fontaine for President
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. What is wrong with this statement: Aug 16, 2004, 13:36 N
 
"She said her son's 17-year-old killer, who was allegedly obsessed with the game, had mimicked the Man Hunt video quest by carrying out a brutal killing."

First off, why the hell did he even HAVE the game in the first place? Secondly, if someone is obsessed with a game, especially a game like that, maybe they are mentally FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD. Blame the game for that, sure -- the kid was obviously screwball in the first place. While the death scenes were laughable in a ridiculous context, I thought the game was friggin' boring.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo