Are video games today's scapegoat for troubled youth ala "Seduction of the Innocent"

[Evan Wiener]

Ok, so I've seen several references to video games participating to the increased violence in our culture and seems to be the latest scapegoat for TV news' psychologist experts. I find it incredibly similar to the spacegoating the comic book industry received in the 50s from Frederic Wertham and his "Seduction of the Innocent," which sent America in a tizzy of censorship to save their "troubled youth." One psychopath does not make for creating generalizations of our culture, nor does it seem fair to mention a medium of entertainment in the same topic as a psychopath who shoots innocent college kids.

I'm also disappointed by so-called experts and their quick rush to judgment and half-assed analysis of someone they never met or clinically assessed themselves.

First off, there has yet to be any scientific correlation between games and violent behavior. Does hitting buttons to see a vicarious behavior encourage that behavior in reality? I find it hard to find a correlation with the technical aspects of learning to hit specific buttons on a plastic controller and operating a Glock 9.

Second, did this horrible guy ever play video games? Why are they even mentioned in this case, other than scapegoating?

I then got into a debate with someone over whether violent content in video games should be prevented from being produced. I stressed that I found it hypocritical to make a distinction between the vicarious violent entertainment of pushing play to watch a violent film and pushing "A" to see a violent act be made by polygons.

I fear the concept of censoring content, and not just labeling it and enforcing laws on the age ratings to be going too far. Other than child porn and snuff films, I think you risk a tenuous freedom of speech/expression issue. While I agree that some games are exploitive and in poor taste, I don't think they should be censored from society.

The person I argued with was concerned that parents are too busy and overworked and are inundated with inappropriate entertainment these days, but I still think it's become a scapegoat issue without proper correlation. They then referenced the "older brother gets the M-rated game and brings it in the house for the younger kid to find" scenario, but again, I can't help feel it's going to far to censor it from our culture.

[Akira]

Yes. Although it has changed as of late. in the last couple of days both Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh have defended video games, gamers and game "culture" in the wake of the VT shootings. Right now it seems like Jack Thompson is the only zealot still out there. Even Lieberman has been kinda silent on the issue.

[TIP]

Comics, Rock and Roll, Video Games, Dynasty Rerun Marathons...if it's not one thing it is another.

T

[Ryan_ZOOM_Turner]

Comics, Rock and Roll, Video Games, Dynasty Rerun Marathons...if it's not one thing it is another.

T

The Andy Griffith Show also.

[Gregory]

You forgot Marilyn Manson.

[Amos Moses]

I was crazy long before I started sneaking up behind people and plating C4 on their backs.


The Andy Griffith Show also.

I swear to god if you ever put down anything (or anyone) Andy Griffith has done I will sneak up behind you and plant a bomb on your back.

[TIP]

I swear to god if you ever put down anything (or anyone) Andy Griffith has done I will sneak up behind you and plant a bomb on your back.

Pfft. Gomer did that to Otis in an ep.

[Gregory]

Pfft. Gomer did that to Otis in an ep.

And then the goat ate the dynamite.

[Ryan_ZOOM_Turner]

Pfft. Gomer did that to Otis in an ep.

See what I mean.

[TIP]

And then the goat ate the dynamite.

The Fife you say?

[Amos Moses]

Pfft. Gomer did that to Otis in an ep.

Gomer Pyle was the original Gangsta.

[Ryan_ZOOM_Turner]

Gomer Pyle was the original Gangsta.

I wish I was good at photoshop.

[Evan Wiener]

The person I was debating with really felt that games like Manhunt are a horrible addition to our entertainment culture, and shouldn't be made. I disagreed, saying that choosing what makes YOU feel uncomfortable runs the risk of others eliminating your ability to listen to rap, watch the Departed, or read Catcher in the Rye. While I agree many games are exploitive and distasteful, I guess I'm more a traditional conservative on this issue and feel the gov't has no business doing more requesting a rating system be generated by the industry.

I still find it misguided to place "A" on a game with sex and "M" on a game with violence, and that is a valid concern. But censorship altogether scares me more.

[Amos Moses]

I wish I was good at photoshop.
It's okay, we know people who are.


The person I was debating with really felt that games like Manhunt are a horrible addition to our entertainment culture, and shouldn't be made. I disagreed, saying that choosing what makes YOU feel uncomfortable runs the risk of others eliminating your ability to listen to rap, watch the Departed, or read Catcher in the Rye. While I agree many games are exploitive and distasteful, I guess I'm more a traditional conservative on this issue and feel the gov't has no business doing more requesting a rating system be generated by the industry.

I still find it misguided to place "A" on a game with sex and "M" on a game with violence, and that is a valid concern. But censorship altogether scares me more.

Yeah Manhunt is pretty twisted, and I'm probably a bad person for enjoying it.

"It's a sign of the weaker races! THE INSTINCT TO HIDE!"

*Baseball bat upside the head*

But I think it's asinine that we think sex is "bad" in America.

EDIT: I just realized I have a homocidal clown from a video game as my avatar. Going to Bellvue, brb.

[Generic Poster]

You forgot Marilyn Manson.

And Dungeons & Dragons! Even Tom Hanks warned us of its dangers!

[Evan Wiener]

And Dungeons & Dragons! Even Tom Hanks warned us of its dangers!

Not getting the Tom Hanks reference. :-?

[Gregory]

Not getting the Tom Hanks reference. :-?

He was in a CBS movie about kids losing their minds to a D&D game.

[Generic Poster]

He was in a CBS movie about kids losing their minds to a D&D game.

Yeah. Mazes and Monsters, I believe.

[TSChamp]

Another excuse for people to use to answer the question why someone did something. They edit Bugs Bunny cartoon that shows any character shooting themselves in the head because they think it makes kids commit suicide. This is utter bullshit. These people had problems before cartoons, music, and video games. It is the way you were raised that helps decided how you are going to act. No game, music, or cartoon can have more influence over children that a set of loving parents. It is the one's that have parents that don't pay attention to their children that have problems. It starts at home.

[mario]

well, since the Army uses a specially designed first-person shooter game to train it's recruits and acively encourages them to play such games, you can say that some videogames are an method for troubled teens to build up shooting "experience" and a step to the actual thing.
On the other hand: I also firmly believe that such videogames can provide the tension-relief for people to vent their anger issues.

[SeanC]

Gomer Pyle was the original Gangsta.

"Shazam.........It feels good to be a gangsta"

[Evan Wiener]

Another excuse for people to use to answer the question why someone did something. They edit Bugs Bunny cartoon that shows any character shooting themselves in the head because they think it makes kids commit suicide. This is utter bullshit. These people had problems before cartoons, music, and video games. It is the way you were raised that helps decided how you are going to act. No game, music, or cartoon can have more influence over children that a set of loving parents. It is the one's that have parents that don't pay attention to their children that have problems. It starts at home.

There's no one reason for anything like this. It's a combination of things like violent personality, inappropriate behavior patterns, bad home life, chemical imbalance (sorry Tom Cruise, it's partially true), access to weapons, and random chaos. Bad parenting doesn't explain a Jeffrey Dahmer.

[Gregory]

Another excuse for people to use to answer the question why someone did something. They edit Bugs Bunny cartoon that shows any character shooting themselves in the head because they think it makes kids commit suicide. This is utter bullshit. These people had problems before cartoons, music, and video games. It is the way you were raised that helps decided how you are going to act. No game, music, or cartoon can have more influence over children that a set of loving parents. It is the one's that have parents that don't pay attention to their children that have problems. It starts at home.

Sesame Street had to get rid of this character because kids were impersonating him and banging their heads on pianos.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/heygregory/pianohead.gif

[thecheat1]

well, since the Army uses a specially designed first-person shooter game to train it's recruits and acively encourages them to play such games, you can say that some videogames are an method for troubled teens to build up shooting "experience" and a step to the actual thing.
On the other hand: I also firmly believe that such videogames can provide the tension-relief for people to vent their anger issues.

Video games should certainly not be used as a scapegoat but, you can't tell me that playing games for hours a where you bludgon hookers for money or points does not desensitize you to violence.

Will it make you a sociopath? For 97% of the population, of course not. It's going to take a lot more then that. But, if you have these kinds of thoughts or tendencies, isn't it possible you're driven to these types of games, which could encourage those tendencies even more?

Again, I'm not saying that playing violent videogames makes people killers or that only people who have these tendencies would want to play these games. What I'm saying is you have a percentage of the population that has or can be effected by it. And, like the poster above pointed out, these games are used by the military to desensitize recruits.

[thecheat1]

There's no one reason for anything like this. It's a combination of things like violent personality, inappropriate behavior patterns, bad home life, chemical imbalance (sorry Tom Cruise, it's partially true), access to weapons, and random chaos. Bad parenting doesn't explain a Jeffrey Dahmer.

Aren't many of those things developed from bad parenting? Maybe it's getting into a nature vs nurture arguement.

[Evan Wiener]

He was in a CBS movie about kids losing their minds to a D&D game.

I have to see that! :)

[Evan Wiener]

Sesame Street had to get rid of this character because kids were impersonating him and banging their heads on pianos.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/heygregory/pianohead.gif

REALLY?! Oh my god... this country is full of over-protective parents with too much free time.

[En Sabah Poo]

I think parents should just stop either:

A) beating and raping their children
B) giving them everything they ask for no reason
C) completely ignoring/abandoning them

[Jef UK]

Studies have shown that playing violent videogames do in fact negatively affect the brain in some ways, desensitize players to violence, and can promote bad behavior. I think the videogaming community's knee-jerk reaction of "that's stupid, video games don't affect the way we think or behave," is much worse than looking at the evidence and starting to come to terms with how violence in videogames could in fact be negatively impacting our society. Separate studies from the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa show similar results: " that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors." These studies used sound, scientific methods of obtaining their data, despite the initial poster's unfounded claim that "there has yet to be any scientific correlation between games and violent behavior."


http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120505

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/jul/desensitized.shtml

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536261.html

[En Sabah Poo]

Studies have shown that playing violent videogames do in fact negatively affect the brain in some ways, desensitize players to violence, and can promote bad behavior. I think the videogaming community's knee-jerk reaction of "that's stupid, video games don't affect the way we think or behave," is much worse than looking at the evidence and starting to come to terms with how violence in videogames could in fact be negatively impacting our society. Separate studies from the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa show similar results: " that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors." These studies used sound, scientific methods of obtaining their data, despite the initial poster's unfounded claim that "there has yet to be any scientific correlation between games and violent behavior."


http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120505

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/jul/desensitized.shtml

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536261.html

I know when I'm smashing pots to get rupees I'm just chomping at the bit afterwards to vandalize my neighborhood.

Seriously, lets take a look at the news and the violence on television before we attack an entire industry who only has a minority amount of realistic violence in its substance.

[Jef UK]

I know when I'm smashing pots to get rupees I'm just chomping at the bit afterwards to vandalize my neighborhood.

Seriously, lets take a look at the news and the violence on television before we attack an entire industry who only has a minority amount of realistic violence in its substance.

Let's cure cancer before we bother with AIDS!

Also, these studies don't "attack an entire industry."

[En Sabah Poo]

Let's cure cancer before we bother with AIDS!

Also, these studies don't "attack an entire industry."

AIDS and cancer are completely different. We're discussing the cause of violence amongst our youth. I'm suggesting the notion that the most important place to look is our media as a whole.

Your analogy would be more appropriate if we were looking to cure the things that cause the most death, and instead of looking at aids AND cancer, we just look at something like tonsilitis.

[costello]

It's so much easier to point the finger at something else and not think about how you contribute to the problem yourself.

One man's monster is what keeps another man alive. There have been times when the best way for me to take my frustrations out were w/ video games. It's much safer than alcohol or pot. I didn't hurt anyone and I can make the separation between fantasy and reality.

[TSChamp]

Studies have shown that playing violent videogames do in fact negatively affect the brain in some ways, desensitize players to violence, and can promote bad behavior. I think the videogaming community's knee-jerk reaction of "that's stupid, video games don't affect the way we think or behave," is much worse than looking at the evidence and starting to come to terms with how violence in videogames could in fact be negatively impacting our society. Separate studies from the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa show similar results: " that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors." These studies used sound, scientific methods of obtaining their data, despite the initial poster's unfounded claim that "there has yet to be any scientific correlation between games and violent behavior."


http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120505

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/jul/desensitized.shtml

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536261.html

I don't mean to discount any study, but it is a fact that anything done in excess is bad for you. If eat nothing rabbit for 3 weeks, you will die because it is lean meat. Drink alcholo to excess it will kill you. It comes down to control. Which is what parent should be teaching their children. My son plays video game for one hour on weekdays and maybe at most three hours on the weekends. The other time he is at home we talk, his reading, going to the gym, playing outside, or drawing. Playing video games for 10 hours a day/seven day a week would desensitize you to certain things, but that isn't what majority of parents are doing. Moderating is key to anything. Hell, you nothing but comic books all your life 12 hours a day/ seven days a week can desensitize you too. It is how you learn to control yourself is the key.

[Jef UK]

AIDS and cancer are completely different. We're discussing the cause of violence amongst our youth. I'm suggesting the notion that the most important place to look is our media as a whole.

Your analogy would be more appropriate if we were looking to cure the things that cause the most death, and instead of looking at aids AND cancer, we just look at something like tonsilitis.


The way by which to resolve problems in our media as a whole is to tackle individual problems as we encounter them. If studies continue to show that violence in videogames can promote violence in people's lives, as a responsible community we should do something about it, and not ignore the correlations or rant about the "larger issues." And this isn't simply an issue of how much death any given media outlet causes, but an issue of how a particular media outlet effects child and adult brains and behavior.

And I don't really care about talk show pundits skapegoating the videogame industry. Videogames shouldn't be a skapegoat for tragedy's like the VTech massacre, certainly. But we shouldn't ignore evidence that is beginning to emerge regarding violence and videogames either, and we as gamers, and Americans supporting a 10-billion-dollar a year industry, should be more intellectually responsible than, "but I like playing 'Grand Theft Auto.'"

I should add that I like playing Grand Theft Auto.

[En Sabah Poo]

The way by which to resolve problems in our media as a whole is to tackle individual problems as we encounter them. If studies continue to show that violence in videogames can promote violence in people's lives, as a responsible community we should do something about it, and not ignore the correlations or rant about the "larger issues." And this isn't simply an issue of how much death any given media outlet causes, but an issue of how a particular media outlet effects child and adult brains and behavior.

And I don't really care about talk show pundits skapegoating the videogame industry. Videogames shouldn't be a skapegoat for tragedy's like the VTech massacre, certainly. But we shouldn't ignore evidence that is beginning to emerge regarding violence and videogames either, and we as gamers, and Americans supporting a 10-billion-dollar a year industry, should be more intellectually responsible than, "but I like playing 'Grand Theft Auto.'"

I should add that I like playing Grand Theft Auto.

Well, I'd say that because so many millions play video games and have no problems, its not video games. It's the person and their other environmental conditions that have turned them violent. Video games turning people violent is the exception to the rule just based on sheer numbers. But somehow its always being argued that it IS the rule. Which just doesn't make sense.

People do a variety of different things that you could correlate to their being violent. But in the end, its just the person and social upbrining. Video games, and even movies and the news (although I think are more prevalent in the media discussion) are really all scapegoats for society not wanting to confront its own problems head on. Because if it was forced to do that, it would have to blame itself for the ills of society, and deservedly so.

[Jef UK]

If eat nothing rabbit for 3 weeks, you will die because it is lean meat.


So? That's just a fact about rabbit meat, not about eating certain foods to excess.

As to your larger point: sure. That good parenting is a good thing for society goes without saying. But good parenting doesn't address the effects violent videogames may have on developing or developed (see below or read the studies) brains. Furthermore, the studies in question based their findings on college adults playing as little as 20 minutes worth of a violent game.

[En Sabah Poo]

So? That's just a fact about rabbit meat, not about eating certain foods to excess.

As to your larger point: sure. That good parenting is a good thing for society goes without saying. But good parenting doesn't address the effects violent videogames may have on developing or developed (see below or read the studies) brains. Furthermore, the studies in question based their findings on college adults playing as little as 20 minutes worth of a violent game.

But do those studies say why the vast majority of game players don't go out and commit violence? I'd suggest the possibility their sampling is flawed or their results are biased.

[TSChamp]

So? That's just a fact about rabbit meat, not about eating certain foods to excess.

As to your larger point: sure. That good parenting is a good thing for society goes without saying. But good parenting doesn't address the effects violent videogames may have on developing or developed (see below or read the studies) brains. Furthermore, the studies in question based their findings on college adults playing as little as 20 minutes worth of a violent game.

Good parenting make good people with a sense of responsibility. Bad parenting makes people with no sense responsibility that look to blame something else for their problems. Abused children are more likely to be abusive. Alcoholic parents are more likely to have children that are alcoholics. So on so forth. Parents that allow their children to play video games for hours on end will have children that don't know about control over their desires. When you distill any of these studies down to their essence it comes to one thing: Parents need to watch over the information that their children receive. I wouldn't let my 8 year play Grand Theft Auto nor would I pop in a porn video tape in for him to watch. They aren't mature enough to deal with those type of things.

Lets put this way. Who buys these video games for kids? Parents. Who should read review and ratings for video games? Parents. Who should set guidelines for their children's informational input? Parents. They can have all the studies in the world saying that whatever is bad for children or young adults to see, but parents are the ones that either allowing or not allowing them to see it. Parents are who develop our outlook on the world. They have more influence over children than any video game will ever have because of their authority position in children's lives. The blame this or that is bullshit. People what someone to blame. Look at home or in the mirror.

[Jef UK]

Well, I'd say that because so many millions play video games and have no problems, its not video games.

What's not videogames? That a particular violent event isn't caused by videogames? Sure. However, "problems" manifest themselves in more ways than a shooting massacre. Regardless, it's starting to look like violent videogames can negatively affect behavior. I don't know how to respond to such evidence other than saying, "we should look into this more, and as a responsible society, do something about it if the evidence bears out." I don't see how any reasonable and moral person could think otherwise.



It's the person and their other environmental conditions that have turned them violent. Video games turning people violent is the exception to the rule just based on sheer numbers. But somehow its always being argued that it IS the rule. Which just doesn't make sense.

Video games are a part of a person's environmental conditions, and I don't know how you could claim that they are somehow an exception to the rule based on sheer numbers. You're guessing. Again, bad behavior doesn't have to express itself as shooting massacres.


People do a variety of different things that you could correlate to their being violent.

Yes. And if we can do anything about those variety of different things, we should. And we do all the time. See: psychiatry, medication, therapy, law, imprisonment, etc, etc, etc.



But in the end, its just the person and social upbrining.

Vidoe games are a part of a person's social upbringing.



Video games, and even movies and the news (although I think are more prevalent in the media discussion) are really all scapegoats for society not wanting to confront its own problems head on. Because if it was forced to do that, it would have to blame itself for the ills of society, and deservedly so.

If one of society's problems are violent forms of media, then they should be confronted head on. If one of the forms of media by which violence is a problem is videogames, then that should be confronted head on. I don't see how you can think that "society's problems" are somehow manifested outside of people's behavior or interactions with things like technology.* And interaction with technology is a defining aspect of modern society.

*That's like when people talk about religions as though they exist outside of the poeple who practice them and the texts that promote them.

[TSChamp]

Just to add another thing. When you reach a certain age, you can't blame your parents anymore because you should be old enough to think for yourself. That is something else that is bullshit. As adults, we need to take responsibility for our own choices in this life. It easy to blame my father for not letting me study computer programming back in 91, but it was my choice not to stick to my guns and bow to my father's demands. In other words, it was my fault not going into computer programming not my fathers.

[En Sabah Poo]

Well, i think all of that is really reaching and going down a dangerous road of censorship and society imposed oppression upon individuals. It is a knee jerk reaction in my opinion. You're saying just because its not a wide spread problem doesn't mean its not still a problem. But you could say that with just about anything that one wanted to change or get rid of. Are we going to stop people from watching tv or going to movies? Are we going to stop letting people hunt? Are we going to stop letting people rally/protest, go to church, eat meat, etc. etc. There's a laundry list of things that could make someone prone to violent behavior in a minority of cases. It's not a good idea to act on them because of an emotional time.

[Dreg]

Can't be the guns. Must be something else. Hey, video games are something else!

[Evan Wiener]

Anyone find it hypocritical of TV news to plaster this guy's photos and video 24-7 and bring so much attention to him, someone who claimed Columbine partially inspired him, and yet TV pundits and psychologists on TV pick film and video games out as contributing factors? The reference video games like the whole industry is corrupting youth, and act as if it's a free-for-all when it comes to what games get into kids' hands. I'd bet that anyone who watches a violent film or TV show would have elevated levels of aggression similar to the findings from these studies and that the medium is irrelevant to the effects of the audience. The person I was debating with found a distinction between violent film/TV and games and I disagreed. I feel there's no difference between pushing "PLAY" and pushing "A" (I love how that rhymes!).

And Jef, it's not like the ESRB ratings aren't on the games and laws aren't being enforced to keep inappropriate content out of the hands of burgeoning young minds. But I find it unfair to suggest banning violent entertainment because a small percentage of the population are sociopaths. I think those kids in Columbine and this nut at VT would have found a violent way to express their anger regardless of films they saw or games they played. However, the way things are being reported, you'll find there's a bias toward lazy reporting that makes it easier to write a story by falling on cliches that are unfounded. Unfortunately, schmucks like Dr. Phil and every psychologist who never worked with this sociopath like to make it easier for people to find a scapegoat, without any base for it. Video games are totally unrelated to this tragedy, yet I keep hearing about them like there is a direct correlation. That's irresponsible misinformation due to a lazy ass media looking for airtime to fill.

[En Sabah Poo]

Just to add another thing. When you reach a certain age, you can't blame your parents anymore because you should be old enough to think for yourself. That is something else that is bullshit. As adults, we need to take responsibility for our own choices in this life. It easy to blame my father for not letting me study computer programming back in 91, but it was my choice not to stick to my guns and bow to my father's demands. In other words, it was my fault not going into computer programming not my fathers.

That's far too dismissive. Many many peoples behavioral problems are a direct or nearly direct result of their childhood. To think you magically turn that off once you are an adult is not realistic. Your instincts and learned behavior stay with you for most of your life unless you conciously examine and change them, which can be difficult if not impossible.

[Matt Jay]

Studies have shown that playing violent videogames do in fact negatively affect the brain in some ways, desensitize players to violence, and can promote bad behavior. I think the videogaming community's knee-jerk reaction of "that's stupid, video games don't affect the way we think or behave," is much worse than looking at the evidence and starting to come to terms with how violence in videogames could in fact be negatively impacting our society. Separate studies from the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa show similar results: " that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors." These studies used sound, scientific methods of obtaining their data, despite the initial poster's unfounded claim that "there has yet to be any scientific correlation between games and violent behavior."


http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2005/Dec05/r120505

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/06/jul/desensitized.shtml

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/28/hscout536261.html

I haven't read those but a couple years back I wrote a report on the topic. I found a meta-analytic study compiling the data on all the studies. Long story short, they can make a person more violent but only certain people. And by "violence" I don't mean it'll make you grab a gun and shoot someone for no reason. I mean it can make a person more likely to punch someone else if the situation calls for it.

It's no different than effects of violent television as demonstrated in that famous study with the video of the adult hitting a punching bag. Singling out videogames as a problem is a symptom of an older generation resentful of a medium that they don't really understand. In that way, I think it's very much like "Seduction of the Innocent".

[Jef UK]

Good parenting make good people with a sense of responsibility. Bad parenting makes people with no sense responsibility that look to blame something else for their problems. Abused children are more likely to be abusive. Alcoholic parents are more likely to have children that are alcoholics. So on so forth. Parents that allow their children to play video games for hours on end will have children that don't know about control over their desires. When you distill any of these studies down to their essence it comes to one thing: Parents need to watch over the information that their children receive. I wouldn't let my 8 year play Grand Theft Auto nor would I pop in a porn video tape in for him to watch. They aren't mature enough to deal with those type of things.

Lets put this way. Who buys these video games for kids? Parents. Who should read review and ratings for video games? Parents. Who should set guidelines for their children's informational input? Parents. They can have all the studies in the world saying that whatever is bad for children or young adults to see, but parents are the ones that either allowing or not allowing them to see it. Parents are who develop our outlook on the world. They have more influence over children than any video game will ever have because of their authority position in children's lives. The blame this or that is bullshit. People what someone to blame. Look at home or in the mirror.

I think the sort of simplicity between the effects of parenting on children that you are espousing is more of a problem than investigating the ill effects that violence in videogames may have on brains and behavior.

[Doc Randy]

well, since the Army uses a specially designed first-person shooter game to train it's recruits and acively encourages them to play such games, you can say that some videogames are an method for troubled teens to build up shooting "experience" and a step to the actual thing.


To clarify:

The Army has developed two games. The FPS (America's Army) is NOT used for training. It is a free video game used for recruiting and marketing purposes.

The game that is actually used for training (Full Spectrum Warrior) is not a first-person shooter, but a squad level strategy game that teaches and emphasizes squad-level/fire-team tactics.


That being said, I read a FBI report that said FPS games have been shown to improve real shooting skills mass killings like what happened at VT.

[Jef UK]

Can't be the guns. Must be something else. Hey, video games are something else!

I get what you are saying, and I think you are quite right.

[En Sabah Poo]

What kind of guns did the kid use?

On top of that, what does it say about our society when its so easy for a kid with such obvious behavioral problems to get his hands on such guns?

[TSChamp]

That's far too dismissive. Many many peoples behavioral problems are a direct or nearly direct result of their childhood. To think you magically turn that off once you are an adult is not realistic. Your instincts and learned behavior stay with you for most of your life unless you conciously examine and change them, which can be difficult if not impossible.

I see your point. All I am trying to say if you had a set of normal parents that look after your well being, you can't blame them for your problems as an adult. We make mistakes as adults. We shouldn't look no further than the mirror for the cause most of the time. I would also like to add many seek help due to abusive parents are turned out just fine. There are those with serious metal issues that have nothing to due with parenting. There a exception to every rule.

[En Sabah Poo]

I see your point. All I am trying to say if you had a set of normal parents that look after your well being, you can't blame them for your problems as an adult. We make mistakes as adults. We shouldn't look no further than the mirror for the cause most of the time. I would also like to add many seek help due to abusive parents are turned out just fine. There are those with serious metal issues that have nothing to due with parenting. There a exception to every rule.

I agree.

[Jef UK]

Well, i think all of that is really reaching and going down a dangerous road of censorship and society imposed oppression upon individuals. It is a knee jerk reaction in my opinion. You're saying just because its not a wide spread problem doesn't mean its not still a problem. But you could say that with just about anything that one wanted to change or get rid of. Are we going to stop people from watching tv or going to movies? Are we going to stop letting people hunt? Are we going to stop letting people rally/protest, go to church, eat meat, etc. etc. There's a laundry list of things that could make someone prone to violent behavior in a minority of cases. It's not a good idea to act on them because of an emotional time.

I'm not advocating the censorship of videogame content, nor have I even stepped in that direction. I also don't think that videogaming should be a media skapegoat for voilence in America. I am showing that there is evidence that playing violent videogames has negative effects on brains and behavior.

I don't understand your leaps in logic. Even if I was advocating censorship of videogame content, that's a far cry from "stop people from playing videogames!" Not to mention your further wanderings down a path of some unimaginable slippery slope. At any rate, your response still seems to be, "but I like playing Grand Theft Auto!"

Again, I like playing Grand Theft Auto.

[Evan Wiener]

I haven't read those but a couple years back I wrote a report on the topic. I found a meta-analytic study compiling the data on all the studies. Long story short, they can make a person more violent but only certain people. And by "violence" I don't mean it'll make you grab a gun and shoot someone for no reason. I mean it can make a person more likely to punch someone else if the situation calls for it.

It's no different than effects of violent television as demonstrated in that famous study with the video of the adult hitting a punching bag. Singling out videogames as a problem is a symptom of an older generation resentful of a medium that they don't really understand. In that way, I think it's very much like "Seduction of the Innocent".

Agreed, and my point exactly. Too many people being brought in as "experts" have very little basis for making their unfounded accusations. It really smacks of Wertham's BS and the paranoia resulting in the censorship of EC Comics and the destruction of people's livelihoods that were in NO WAY responsible for that era's so-called troubled youth. Does no one study history?

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Rush Limbaugh, of all people, correct one of his callers who was quick to jump to conclusions that they'd find video games in the possessions of this nut at VA Tech. What makes that dude think that? Who put that baseless conclusion in his head?

I'd say it's a media bias, but not a liberal one Rush is so often conspiring about, but a bias toward lazy-ass reporting loaded with cliche. It's a good thing I have morals, otherwise I'd exploit today's paranoid culture and write a book called "Virtual Death" and state my case for violent games leading to today's troubled youth. While I'd be full of shit, I'd make the NY Times bestseller list.

[Evan Wiener]

I'm not advocating the censorship of videogame content, nor have I even stepped in that direction. I also don't think that videogaming should be a media skapegoat for voilence in America. I am showing that there is evidence that playing violent videogames has negative effects on brains and behavior.

I don't understand your leaps in logic. Even if I was advocating censorship of videogame content, that's a far cry from "stop people from playing videogames!" Not to mention your further wanderings down a path of some unimaginable slippery slope. At any rate, your response still seems to be, "but I like playing Grand Theft Auto!"

Again, I like playing Grand Theft Auto.

So a rating system informing parents isn't enough, they need to be banned altogether? That's my problem.

Games also cause epileptic seizures in some players, but I don't think games should be banned from society because they do have negative effects on a small percentage of the society. Warn them and leave it in their hands to be responsible for their own behavior.

[Jef UK]

I haven't read those but a couple years back I wrote a report on the topic. I found a meta-analytic study compiling the data on all the studies. Long story short, they can make a person more violent but only certain people. And by "violence" I don't mean it'll make you grab a gun and shoot someone for no reason. I mean it can make a person more likely to punch someone else if the situation calls for it.


While I am always wary of meta-analysis: sure. I would ask anyone how we are to help those people who it does effect if we don't perform the studies, look at the evidence, and come up with solutions. We certaintly can't help anyone by throwing up our hands and saying, "It's not fair to cast videogames in a negative light! They're just a skapegoet! I like playing Grand Theft Auto!"

[TSChamp]

I think the sort of simplicity between the effects of parenting on children that you are espousing is more of a problem than investigating the ill effects that violence in videogames may have on brains and behavior.

If I let my son go out until 3:00 am every night, I am bad parent. Right? If If allow my son to sit in front of TV playing video games for all hours of the day, what kind of person would I be shaping here? The could be creative, violent, or just a lump with a couch stuck to his ass. I take a very active role in my children's lives. I monitor what they watch, read, and listen too because it effects their development. Can something come a long and change all that? Maybe, I think they would at least be able to take make a good decision based on how they were raised.

The point you are trying to make has too many variables to be conclusive which is what is wrong with these studies. They don't take into account of other things that effect children social make up. They just singling out one thing which may or may not contribute to a child's development since all children are different. I have 4 kids. None of them act the same way. Each expresses themselves differently. Billy is studying law enforcement. Walter loves to draw. Alex is into science. Amber..well..she is 6 and wants a pony.

Each of them had the same set of rule when the grew up from 3-13, but they matured at a different rate. I won't let Walter do somethings at 13 that I let Billy do because he isn't mature enough to deal with it. Alex is allow to do things that Walter wasn't because he is a little more mature at that age than Walter or Billy. They are different and need to be allow to examine those differences in a healthy way. They all played video games in the time allowed. They were exposed to art, science, music, outdoors, and many other things under guidance of their parents. These studies are looking at a really minor factor in all that because the exposer and type of games they are using aren't in every single home in America.

[Jef UK]

So a rating system informing parents isn't enough, they need to be banned altogether? That's my problem.


A rating system informing parents isn't enough for what?

Even without specificity: a rating system informing parents may not be enough.

Video games need not be banned altogether.

Dualism is long dead.

[Jef UK]

Too many people being brought in as "experts" have very little basis for making their unfounded accusations. It really smacks of Wertham's BS and the paranoia resulting in the censorship of EC Comics and the destruction of people's livelihoods that were in NO WAY responsible for that era's so-called troubled youth.

Sure. I haven't been addressing this aspect of the issue at all.

[Jef UK]

If I let my son go out until 3:00 am every night, I am bad parent. Right? If If allow my son to sit in front of TV playing video games for all hours of the day, what kind of person would I be shaping here? The could be creative, violent, or just a lump with a couch stuck to his ass. I take a very active role in my children's lives. I monitor what they watch, read, and listen too because it effects their development. Can something come a long and change all that? Maybe, I think they would at least be able to take make a good decision based on how they were raised.

The point you are trying to make has too many variables to be conclusive which is what is wrong with these studies. They don't take into account of other things that effect children social make up. They just singling out one thing which may or may not contribute to a child's development since all children are different. I have 4 kids. None of them act the same way. Each expresses themselves differently. Billy is studying law enforcement. Walter loves to draw. Alex is into science. Amber..well..she is 6 and wants a pony.

Each of them had the same set of rule when the grew up from 3-13, but they matured at a different rate. I won't let Walter do somethings at 13 that I let Billy do because he isn't mature enough to deal with it. Alex is allow to do things that Walter wasn't because he is a little more mature at that age than Walter or Billy. They are different and need to be allow to examine those differences in a healthy way. They all played video games in the time allowed. They were exposed to art, science, music, outdoors, and many other things under guidance of their parents. These studies are looking at a really minor factor in all that because the exposer and type of games they are using aren't in every single home in America.

That's all wonderful and none of it counters the idea that we should be studying the link between violence in videogames and bad behavior, and acting upon the evidence. You can't be a generalist and expect to solve particular problems, but you have to solve particular problems to address larger ones.

[TSChamp]

That's all wonderful and none of it counters the idea that we should be studying the link between violence in videogames and bad behavior, and acting upon the evidence. You can't be a generalist and expect to solve particular problems, but you have to solve particular problems to address larger ones.

They problem is already solved. The rating system on the games works fine and the most games I see have a description of the violence on them. What more can they do really? The only other option is banning violent games from being made and that is one step to banning anything that is offensive. The point I am making is that people need to take responsibility for what they do and why they do thing. There people that have problems with dealing with real world Long before video games. Jack the Ripper was before video games. Ted Bundy was too. There are just some fucked up people in this world who have a set of faulty wiring in their brain. It isn't the games that are the problem. VT killing was sent to a mental hospital for suicide and violent tendencies. He was still able to by the guns that he used. Why? The gun laws aren't written to deal with it. These studies for all the so called science apply to the smallest fraction of society. There isn't a story in the news that has a person doing reenactment of Halo everyday,monthly, or yearly. It just there are people that are fucked up and some laws need to be change to maybe prevent from this happening again.

[Joshzilla]

I've killed a shit-ton of turtles and walking mushrooms by hoppin' on their heads, so maybe there is a link!

Take that, mature debate!

[Jef UK]

They problem is already solved. The rating system on the games works fine and the most games I see have a description of the violence on them. What more can they do really? The only other option is banning violent games from being made and that is one step to banning anything that is offensive. The point I am making is that people need to take responsibility for what they do and why they do thing. There people that have problems with dealing with real world Long before video games. Jack the Ripper was before video games. Ted Bundy was too. There are just some fucked up people in this world who have a set of faulty wiring in their brain. It isn't the games that are the problem. VT killing was sent to a mental hospital for suicide and violent tendencies. He was still able to by the guns that he used. Why? The gun laws aren't written to deal with it. These studies for all the so called science apply to the smallest fraction of society. There isn't a story in the news that has a person doing reenactment of Halo everyday,monthly, or yearly. It just there are people that are fucked up and some laws need to be change to maybe prevent from this happening again.

We don't even know the extent of the problem or what the problem encompasses! It's only though study and experimentation that we can! The law is not the only solution to society's ills, nor is it intellectually or morally responsible in any way to say, "people are just fucked up." If that's where the argument ended, you as a modern individual wouldn't even have the basic understanding of the brain that you have that allows you to use the metaphorical analogy of a brain having "faulty wiring." You seem to making claims for purposeful ignorance.

Figuring out "what more [we] can do, really" is the whole point.

[Jef UK]

I've killed a shit-ton of turtles and walking mushrooms by hoppin' on their heads, so maybe there is a link!

Take that, mature debate!

Ouch!

You win. :cry:

[TSChamp]

We don't even know the extent of the problem or what the problem encompasses! It's only though study and experimentation that we can! The law is not the only solution to society's ills, nor is it intellectually or morally responsible in any way to say, "people are just fucked up." If that's where the argument ended, you as a modern individual wouldn't even have the basic understanding of the brain that you have that allows you to use the metaphorical analogy of a brain having "faulty wiring." You seem to making claims for purposeful ignorance.

Figuring out "what more [we] can do, really" is the whole point.

What you want to do? Have guy standing next the game selection going,"Hey, this game is violent and show people getting their heads blown off." What do we do? We take the information. Use it in our individual lives and make a choice. If you are afraid of playing video games because of these studies, don't play them. It is your choice. There are rating systems in place for people to make an inform decision on buying these games. It is also to be noted these studies just look at one type of games the most violent and goriest they are out there. I would like to see their studies on sims and games for young kids. Do you think the results would be the same? No. This is the same thing they used to say about rock music and saying about rap music. Use the rating system. It is there for a reason. There isn't a problem with the games themselves, or how they are rated. The problem is the people buying them for young kids. To blame an entertainment outlet for causing this or that to children is bullshit. Blame the people that buy the game for kids or take them to the ultraviolet movie that show people getting their heads cut off. You just got to draw line in the sand and say this is where corporate responsibility ends and individual responsibility begins.

My comment about "some people being fucked up" is cover all mental illness which would take forever for me to find and list. It was also meant to lighten this debate up a little bit. It just a fact there or those in any society that have mental illness that either don't get help or are ignored by the majority of society until they do something that causes attention to those issues. I am not saying it is right, but that is what happens in most cases.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

I've killed a shit-ton of turtles and walking mushrooms by hoppin' on their heads, so maybe there is a link!

Take that, mature debate!

I learned my lesson when I hacked away at a chicken until a bunch of them started attacking me out of fucking no where.

[thecheat1]

They problem is already solved. The rating system on the games works fine and the most games I see have a description of the violence on them. What more can they do really? The only other option is banning violent games from being made and that is one step to banning anything that is offensive. The point I am making is that people need to take responsibility for what they do and why they do thing. There people that have problems with dealing with real world Long before video games. Jack the Ripper was before video games. Ted Bundy was too. There are just some fucked up people in this world who have a set of faulty wiring in their brain. It isn't the games that are the problem. VT killing was sent to a mental hospital for suicide and violent tendencies. He was still able to by the guns that he used. Why? The gun laws aren't written to deal with it. These studies for all the so called science apply to the smallest fraction of society. There isn't a story in the news that has a person doing reenactment of Halo everyday,monthly, or yearly. It just there are people that are fucked up and some laws need to be change to maybe prevent from this happening again.


Nothing Jef UK is saying negates the need for personal responsibility or good parenting. I think what's getting missed is that violence in media or in real life can and does have an effect on people but, that effect does not always result in some one killing someone else.

I think what Jef is trying to bring out is that these games (and other forms of violence) have a desensitizing effect on the users. We're not talking about Looney Tunes or Mario jumping on a mushroom. We're talking about games where characters objectives are to kill, maim, or hurt as many people as possible to win. I mean, look at the pictures this guy sent to the media? He's trying his best to be in "bad ass" mode, posing like he's on an action movie poster. You're telling me that there wasn't some media influence there?

Think about the progression in comics for example. How do you think a reader would have responded 20 years ago to the 52 issue where Bacl Adam rips a guy in half? They would have been prety shocked by that, right? How do most people react now? There's a few people that are shocked but, they're mostly older readers. The readers in their 20's? They don't see what the big deal is. Why? Well, it doesn't take a big leap to see that it's because they've been exposed to much more violent books since they've been reading, hence it's not so shocking. The same can be said for sex and profantity.

Whether it bothers you personally is not the issue. Whether all of this effects others is the issue. Maybe the question should be, why do we as a culture want to see graphic violence, not whether it should all be banned?

[Jef UK]

What you want to do?

Figuring out "what more [we] can do, really" is the whole point.

[Jerome Gibbons]

Personally, I would say...yeah, but not as much as they were a few years back.



Then again, I'm not really all that tune with how society and culture in the US have been dealing with videogames during the last couple of years.

[TSChamp]

Define what is offensive to you. In most cases, it won't be exactly the same for the next person. It is entertainment and should be look on a such. What you decide to do for entertainment may not be the same as me. Why should your views or concerned effect my options on what is entertainment? As long as it is legal and no one is getting harmed from it there isn't a problem.

I understand what Jeff is saying, but he is looking for a society solution where there isn't one. These games are meant to be entertainment like movies. There is a system in place. It works if people just took the time to read them. Other than banning any and all violent games, that is the system. There are things that a society can do and agree on, but this isn't one of them. This is individual choice. I, for one, don't want to lose my rights as individual just so society can over react to something that isn't that big of a issue really. The are things we can do as individual to help us to make inform choices like these. There is the rating systems, reviews, and website sponsored by parent group that look at these thing. You gather all the information and make a decision you feel is best. There was talk in the early 50s banning rock music being played on the radio. They claim it was corrupting the young. Hell, they said the same thing about Frank Sinatra in the 40s. Society changes and individuals grow. It is those basic things we learned as children from those that teach us that help make us who we are.

I played Pac-man growing up on a Atari. I don't want to go looking for pellets to eat now or pop pills. I played Dragon Quests a lot too. I have no desire to go around using a sword to solve my problems. I played Mortal Kombat until I beat the game. I don't have desire to solve my problems by ripping out someone's spine. I was moved by the VT because it was real and not a game. I am moved by 9/11 footage because it is real and not a movie. A healthy person knows the difference between reality and entertainment. I have children. I know for a fact they know the difference too. Yes, they have played some minor violent games. I used the rating system and made a inform decision.

[RebootedCorpse]

I burned down a village in Indo-China after playing Pong in 1981.

[sans serif]

They might be right. I have a strong urge to swing my sword at high grass to get gems and kill any lizardy-looking people that I see since I beat Zelda.

Nah, they're fucked.

[Jef UK]

As long as it is legal and no one is getting harmed from it there isn't a problem.

Probably the most important question raised, and the heart of the very issue is, "Are people getting harmed as a result of playing violent videogames?"

A peice of the answer is: evidence is beginning to build that playing violent videogames adversely affects human brains and promotes bad behavior.

This is not controversial. This is not even saying much. I don't understand the leap from the information given above to "you want to take away my videogames!"


I understand what Jeff is saying, but he is looking for a society solution where there isn't one.

I'm not looking for a societal solution as I don't even know what that really means.


These games are meant to be entertainment like movies.

As Bill, who seems to be arguing on your side, pointed out, perhaps the escalation of violence in all media is an overarcing problem.



There is a system in place. It works if people just took the time to read them.

Another question at the very heart of this matter is, "Does the system in place work?" The answer, obiviously, is not unanimously "yes." From there, we would ask "for what and whom is the system in place working?" None of the answers to the latter questions are, "to stop videogames from adversely affecting human brains and behavior."


Other than banning any and all violent games, that is the system.

Solutions to any problem are rarely "either / or."


There are things that a society can do and agree on, but this isn't one of them.

What does that mean? At the very least, I think you are being short sighted.



This is individual choice. I, for one, don't want to lose my rights as individual just so society can over react to something that isn't that big of a issue really.

You do not have the right as an individual to play violent videogames. You play any videogame as a priviledge. And we have no idea yet how big of an issue violence in videogames is. That's the whole point of our inquiries into the matter. Stay open to evidence, make plans accordingly. We have no idea what the long term effects of playing violent videogames on individuals are yet. Videogames themselves have only been around for 30-odd years, not to mention the hyper-violent-laden issuances of the last decade. It could very well amount to nothing. But, like anything else, it's preposterously stupid to make broad claims when the data has only begun to trickle in. Perhaps we should stop studying the long-term effects on individuals' health resulting from suger substitutes because some dudes on a message board think it's no big deal? Why bother further investigating humanity's role in global warming, cuz we'll never agree as a society on that issue, and a lot of people think it's no big deal!?


The are things we can do as individual to help us to make inform choices like these. There is the rating systems, reviews, and website sponsored by parent group that look at these thing. You gather all the information and make a decision you feel is best. There was talk in the early 50s banning rock music being played on the radio. They claim it was corrupting the young. Hell, they said the same thing about Frank Sinatra in the 40s. Society changes and individuals grow. It is those basic things we learned as children from those that teach us that help make us who we are.

That's all wonderful, and has little bearing to what I am advocating. You seem to be against gathering all of the information in the first place, because, "there's a system in place," and "it's no big deal." So far in what little studies have been done, playing violent videogames adversely affects human brains and human behavior. I don't know why you insist on ignoring this point, or what this evidence has to do with you as a parent to your children. Talk to me in 60 some-odd years, and we'll be able to discuss how it all measures up, like we can with rock and roll now. Meanwhile, I will continue to advocate looking into the matter and finding solutions based on emerging evidence, as any reasonable, moral individual should.



I played Pac-man growing up on a Atari. I don't want to go looking for pellets to eat now or pop pills. I played Dragon Quests a lot too. I have no desire to go around using a sword to solve my problems. I played Mortal Kombat until I beat the game. I don't have desire to solve my problems by ripping out someone's spine. I was moved by the VT because it was real and not a game. I am moved by 9/11 footage because it is real and not a movie. A healthy person knows the difference between reality and entertainment. I have children. I know for a fact they know the difference too. Yes, they have played some minor violent games. I used the rating system and made a inform decision.

That's all wonderful and has little bearing to my posiiton, as arguments from personal incredulity are logical fallacies, and anecdotal evidence is meaningless.

[Powersurge_Classic]

Gods forbid people actually consider the influence, or lack thereof, of family and community in the upbringing of children. Many children spend most of the time being raised by tv and other kids in their age group, while grandma and grandpa go to seed in some retirement home, and mom and dad, if a child is fortunate enough to have both, spend all of there time working to maintain a rediculous standard of living, and justify their abscence by saying their doing it all for "little Billy". As for community... what community?!?

Of course, gotta keep up with the Jones', so it can't be our lifestyle that is the problem, it has to be rock'n'roll, or tv, or video games, or aetheists, or nonChristians, or anything but the real problem... us.

[Ben]

Jef UK's doing an excellent job in this thread. I would never have the patience to wade through that much slop.

[Jef UK]

Of course, gotta keep up with the Jones', so it can't be our lifestyle that is the problem, it has to be rock'n'roll, or tv, or video games, or aetheists, or nonChristians, or anything but the real problem... us.

What are our lifestyles outside of our belief systems and the forms of entertainment in which we participate?

A big part of "us" are the things we do and believe.

Not that any of the things you've listed above are predicates for massacres, but answers like yours are complete non-answers.

[TSChamp]

Took a break from this just to get my thoughts in order.

Are video game violence bad for a child or those that are impressible? Yes.
Do we need a "big brother" type of situation to take care of the problem? No. Look at the back of your video games or look at one in the story. You are being told exactly what is in them.

Do we say what can and can not be in any type of entertainment? To a certain extent yes because there are certain types of what a small group of people consider "entertainment" that is truly harmful. The are rating systems for all types of mass produce entertainment. Which is full explained by the guideline giving for the codes for game and other entertainment venues.

Is this a real problem for society to handle? No. Books, Movies, and Music have all been accused of damaging morals and attitudes to children. There have studies on off all these before that have conflicting results. One study it is bad and another says it isn't that big of influence on children. In other words, it really saying don't let your kids play video games with extreme violent content if that aren't mature enough to deal with it. That goes back to the people buying the game.

What is the solutions for this "supposed" problem? One, banning isn't going to happen so that is off the table. You can change the standards of the rating system and add fines to those that sell them people below the posted age. You can also establish a watchdog group that gives out information about this games and inform people of their content.

Bottom line this, there are some that are going be violent even if that never play a video game in their whole life. Why? There are many factors really that play into that happening. People and children have killed long before video game ever existed. The only difference now we get more stories about it because "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality of news business. I don't agree with it, but I don't also have to watch it either.

Freedom to chose what you want to watch, with the given society laws, are important. The question to answers is why people attracted to violence? Have we become overly aggressive in our pursuits of success and other wants we have, and has that cause to enjoy playing violent video game as a release of those aggressive needs? Do we be over obsessed with violence in news and entertainment? Do we crave to see someone in pain? God, I hope none of those is true.

Personal question Jeff. Do you have kids?

[Brian Boru]

HERE'S SOMETHING "OFFICIAL" (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter4/appendix4bsec2.html#MajorBehavioralMedia/)

(if you can somehow manage to keep yourself awake).

Pretty much everyone (with a brain) agrees that desensitization to violence is inevitable. (Duh.)

But so what? In the history of Western civilization, there's never been ANYTHING quite like American culture before... so wudya gonna do, eh?