Violent video games blamed for Virginia Tech slayings

[SUBMAN1]

Hahahahaha! Stupid people.

-S

Pundit shoots off mouth before engaging brain...

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/04/17/dr-phil-blames-video-games-for-virginia-tech-massacre/

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39007

[CCIP]

Not again :down:

[STEED]

It's the old one again, blame the games as we don't know the real reason.

Yes, I can get worked myself but I don't go out looking for victims. In the cold light of day it's most likely to be a great number of thing that affect our lives.

[Deputy]

Yeah...they tried to blame guns too. Nobody wants to look at the fact his guy was a certified nut and even his parents were afraid of him. :roll:

Dep

[fatty]

I am kind of wondering why none of these topics are being posted in the existing 3-page VT thread?

[SUBMAN1]

I am kind of wondering why none of these topics are being posted in the existing 3-page VT thread?
Because it is a new topic. It has more to do with violent video games and less to do with this particular slaying. They are only loosly linked.

[CCIP]

Right, in this case it's a wider issue.

I'm trying to remember who said this quote, but it went like this - "It's not the video games. It's crappy parents raising stupid kids."

That pretty much sums it up for me :hmm:

[waste gate]

Its the sane trying to make sense of the insane. Human beings try to make sense of their enviroment. Insanity cannot be explained by pointing fingers and recrimination.

[fatty]

I am kind of wondering why none of these topics are being posted in the existing 3-page VT thread?
Because it is a new topic. It has more to do with violent video games and less to do with this particular slaying. They are only loosly linked.

Seems like quite a stretch, but I guess the mods know best.

[HunterICX]

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1857/bstt8.jpg

:yep:

[Heibges]

We've got this dude in San Francisco, Yee, whose claim to fame is going after violent video games.

But I doubt video games are any more violent than say Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians back in my day. We always had cap guns. We probably did stuff that bordered on "police brutality" as little kids are prown to do, and this was certainly more visceral than vidoe games, and stuff like this never happened during my generation.

[Skybird]

Most of you are right and wrong at the same time, I think.

Blame not ONLY brutal games, but blame a culture that hails violance in general. And of course games - like almost everything else - can be abused. If your kid plays violant video-games 12 hours a day, expect to see it's behaviors and it's "social competence" changing and it'S intellectual ability decling. So, not so much the game itself is a problem, but a general climate of culture that

a.) produces ultra-violant games
b.) hails, shows, illustrates explicit violance in all media output,
c.) makes kids and juveniles in their most vulnerable years of their life spending excessive timeshares of the day with getting immersed in violant and/or militant games and brutal pseudo-realities

It's like with food you eat: don't expect that if you put lots of violant signals into your cognitive perception and into your brain, that your brain will not produce a non-correlating, non-violant output.

The more your cognitive system is still developing, is vulnerable, is suggestible and maybe is put under stress of puberty or intense stress caused by other factors in your life, the greater the chance that you will fall victim to a violant game.

The more strengthend and finalised your character's developement is, the more balanced you are and the more you have found your place in life and found yourself being anchored in a stress-free living situation, the less vulnerable you are to extreme sensual exposure like violance in games, and other medias.

[Hitman]

Yes we live in a contradictory culture, where violence and war is at the same time officially condemned -and peace and tolerance enforced- and also trivialized and extended in games, cinema, TV... While "socialized violence" is a form of "exhaust valve" to theoretically relieve internal pressure from society -sports and competitions are mainly that-, the modern consumist citizen is unable to resist frustrations, and inmature, reacting with great anger and hate many times. Just see what happens when driving your car around...we have had people here at Spain shoot or rip another with a knife just because of a traffic incident:down: .

However, ancient civilizations like Rome had the most cruel and brutal public spectacles, as well as a publically enforced militarism, and yet they were not a specially "violent" society when you considered the individuals. Ironic:hmm:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Yeah. Everytime I get spawn killed in Red Orchestra I go to school with a gun. :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

Yes we live in a contradictory culture, where violence and war is at the same time officially condemned -and peace and tolerance enforced- and also trivialized and extended in games, cinema, TV... While "socialized violence" is a form of "exhaust valve" to theoretically relieve internal pressure from society -sports and competitions are mainly that-, the modern consumist citizen is unable to resist frustrations, and inmature, reacting with great anger and hate many times. Just see what happens when driving your car around...we have had people here at Spain shoot or rip another with a knife just because of a traffic incident:down: .

However, ancient civilizations like Rome had the most cruel and brutal public spectacles, as well as a publically enforced militarism, and yet they were not a specially "violent" society when you considered the individuals. Ironic:hmm:

Sounds like a case of peace on the outside, while really on the inside we crave war and violence. Sound about right?

[Godalmighty83]

If your kid plays violant video-games 12 hours a day, expect to see it's behaviors and it's "social competence" changing and it'S intellectual ability decling.

1, if your kid spends 12 hours a day playing games (violent or not) then you shouldnt be a parent as your simply not capable. thats not society or the entertainment industry to blame. noone is 'making' a kid sit down and play violent games and i doubt any game could be called a 'pseudo-reality', the graphics and interfaces arent that good yet. 'crysis' may come closest yet to a believable image but in the end your still sat tapping at a keyboard in the realworld. if your grasp on reality is so thin to begin with that you may think triangles and pixels are real then your a threat to the public regardless of trigger or cause.

2, gamings effects on the intellect are far from proven either way, pro-gamers often have well above average IQ's and 'action' gaming in general is good for brain activity, slow pace games that dont stimulate are not so good for you.

3, jack thompson is a douche, he went on tv saying violent games had been found in the guys room before the police had even identified him. the man is a moronic liar who will shortly be disbarred.

4, very very few games are ultra-violent, the only game i can think of which would fall under that category is manhunt, a 18+ game that shouldnt be in the hands of a minor and features less violence then many movies and books (bible included?? ooohh more controversy ;) )


so far there is no link at all between this nutjob that went on a rampage and games, iam struggling to think of any link to any killing sprees with games in the past.

[JetSnake]

Say it with me now. Ban teh games.

[waste gate]

Say it with me now. Ban teh games.

Ban the games and spank your children.

[STEED]

If your kid plays violant video-games 12 hours a day, expect to see it's behaviors and it's "social competence" changing and it'S intellectual ability decling.

1, if your kid spends 12 hours a day playing games (violent or not) then you shouldnt be a parent as your simply not capable.

Tell that to the parents who don't give a flying fart. I could add something but it would change the subject of the thread

[DeePsix501]

People who have seen the gunman before said that he was a quiet kid who often played basketball by himself. I blame basketball. I think the government needs to go through steps to make sure that not only we ban basketballs, but also jail everyone who buys, owns, or looks at basketballs. Problem solved.

With that logic in mind, are we more likely to bring torpedoes to school? Could one of us just snap and clear an entire harbor?

</Sarcasm>

[STEED]

There is one thing you can say, video games are making are kids lazy and fat.

[Deputy]

There is one thing you can say, video games are making are kids lazy and fat.

Hey !!! I resemble that and I'm 57! :lol:
So if the parents tell the kid "get your butt outside to play", then they risk some perv grabbing him and doing some kind of nastiness to him. Send him to school sports...some perv teacher at the school is touching him or photgraphing him in the shower and posting it on YouTube. I dunno what the answer is :-?

Dep

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Actually STEED, I play games alot, yet I balance it with sports when I can. I eat lots, yet I aint fat :smug:

[STEED]

Actually STEED, I play games alot, yet I balance it with sports when I can. I eat lots, yet I aint fat :smug:

That's the point you get out for fresh air.

I hate excise but I make the effort to get out for a good walk involving walking up a hill.

A lot of kids would rather stay in and play there video games.

[SUBMAN1]

That's the point you get out for fresh air.

I hate excise but I make the effort to get out for a good walk involving walking up a hill.

A lot of kids would rather stay in and play there video games.

I'd rather stay in and play video games, but my wife drags me out and makes me walk with her. :-?

-S

[STEED]

I'd rather stay in and play video games, but my wife drags me out and makes me walk with her. :-?

-S

Good old ball and chain. ;)

[Skybird]

1, if your kid spends 12 hours a day playing games (violent or not) then you shouldnt be a parent as your simply not capable. thats not society or the entertainment industry to blame.

But it happens that parents place their little kids at the Tv to get rid of them during the day, or are glad that they are out of sight, or they go to a job, or whatever. If such parents should be parents is unimportant here. It is poor reality in millions of households in western nations, unfortunately, with US households being by far in the lead. I speak as an ex-professional here.

noone is 'making' a kid sit down and play violent games and i doubt any game could be called a 'pseudo-reality', the graphics and interfaces arent that good yet. 'crysis' may come closest yet to a believable image but in the end your still sat tapping at a keyboard in the realworld. if your grasp on reality is so thin to begin with that you may think triangles and pixels are real then your a threat to the public regardless of trigger or cause.

You have no realistic impression of how attractive such action images are for young people due to their colours, action, sounds. Little kids you can even impress with even less sophisticated graphics. If you have a group of let'S say 14 year olds, and you give them a choice to play the latest action shooter, or a board game like Othello, I hold ever bet that the clear majority will go for the action shooter (especially the boys). That's how kids and juveniles are. they prefer action to alternatives most of the time. Why do you think games like this have become so incredibly popular that they make more money per year than the whole movie business? Because only adults above the age of 35 play them? For game addicts, the pseudo-reality of games can become a replacement for their real life, and as a matter of fact this phenomenon is causing more and more headache for psychotherapists.

You may want to consider some TV-related scientific data as published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org

It is payware-texts and not directly linkable, you need to search for it if you are interested:

2005; 159:619-625:

Frederick J. Zimmerman and Dimitri A Christakis of the university of Washington, Seattle, conducted a longtime study with more than 11.000 children. From 1986 until 2000 they conducted regular examinations and interviews. Abilities in reading, writing were compared with TV consuming rates between the ages 3 and 5 years.

Kids of that age sat at least 2 hours at TV per day, most of the program was rated as "pedagogical valuable". Two third of the children under the age of 2 already watched TV for 1.3 hours per day (all data for USA).

Result: at the age of 6 and 7, children consuming TV under the age of 2 perform significantly poorer at school, even when factors like family background, social environment and special training gets considered.The group of 3-5 year old consumming TV showed a slight increase in short time memory performance. Concerning maths and understanding written texts there was no effect to be found.


2005; 159: 614-618:

A study from New Zealand came to the significant result that increased TV consummation between 5 and 15 years decreases the probability of acchieving a successful school-leaving qualification (? Schulabschluss). A TV consummation of 2 hours per day or more leads this effect to become statistically highly significant. There is also a correlation with low social staus of the family and lower IQs. the negative consequences of TV consummation persists even if the latter factors get extracted from the calculation.

There is some indication that computers not being used for playing could help to increase abilities in readiong and calculation. So, it makes a difference if kids passively watch TV, actively use computer for non-gaming, or gaming. however, these results in favour of PC's positive results on mental developement of children are heavily disputed by many experts in the educational field, and accoridng examinations are critised for methodical reasons. I think it will be many years until they reach some kind of consensus - if ever.

I did not search for it again while writing this, but there was some recent scientific results being published, explaining that excitement of the kind you experience during an exciting video game affect your memory performance on biochemical levels. It comes down to that neurochemicals get produced that prevent your memory from storing things you just learned from books , so that your memory and thus learning effort degrades in performance. That'S why learning should not be embedded by periods of hectic and exctiing action before, or afterwards (teachers know that since longer, I assume).

It was also published just days ago that very small kid's brains get ill-"programmed" on a neuronal level if they are allowed to consume monitor pictures and sounds from the speakers, becausue the relation between what they see and what they hear cannot be understood by them yet, so both signals make the brain to build neuronal connections that are working false and thus negartively influence cognitive and intellectual activity later and outside that context. Learning last but not least means reforming of neuronal connections inside the brain, something that the wide public does not know. Learning can be trained, but that ability as well as learning itself gets lost more and more the older we become - that's why we find it increasingly harder to learn new things at higher ages. - It was a German essay that I just flew over some days ago, but I can't find it again, too bad. It was very interestingly written, and easy to understand.

2, gamings effects on the intellect are far from proven either way, pro-gamers often have well above average IQ's and 'action' gaming in general is good for brain activity, slow pace games that dont stimulate are not so good for you.

You really push it far here. first you say there is no proof, but then you state that gaming effects brain activity. Anyhow, it is layman's psychology to conclude that action games in general train your rflexes and slow games are not stimulative and are not good for you. there were repeatedly attempts to make some scientific evidence for these claims (often made by people having relations to the gaming industry, or want to defend their own gaming), but these so far lacked the needed statisctal substance and so far are not taken serious in the scietific community. I refer to talks and debates I have wsith former colleagues ion these things, occasionally.

Oh, just in case you don't know me, Godalmighty, I have been psychologist myself, but am not working in that field anymore.

3, jack thompson is a douche, he went on tv saying violent games had been found in the guys room before the police had even identified him. the man is a moronic liar who will shortly be disbarred.

4, very very few games are ultra-violent, the only game i can think of which would fall under that category is manhunt, a 18+ game that shouldnt be in the hands of a minor and features less violence then many movies and books (bible included?? ooohh more controversy ;) )


so far there is no link at all between this nutjob that went on a rampage and games, iam struggling to think of any link to any killing sprees with games in the past.

As I pointed out in my previous posting, the game in question needs to be seen in a higher context - as a symptom of a culture that certainly expresses a great love for explicitly illustrating acts of violance and brutality in all it's medias. the rest of my posting there is a classic vulnerability-theory you often can find in psychologic literature. such theories claim that every individual has an individual threshold concerning for example stress, which is depending on individual variables and factors like biography, living conditions, genetics, and so on. If environmental signals ("input") reaches and exceedes these individual treshold values, the reaciton in question is being shown, or the symptoms will develope (in this case: cognitive safeties fail and the player turns into a murderous maniac). If the external "stress level" does not exceed this treshhold value, the reaction in question will not be shown.

[Sailor Steve]

Actually STEED, I play games alot, yet I balance it with sports when I can. I eat lots, yet I aint fat :smug:
Unfair comparison!:down:

You're young, and very tall. When I was your age and had your metabolism I could eat a whole horse and not gain a pound. Of course I also ran everywhere I went, just 'cause I could. On the other hand I'll never reach your height, you cheater, you!

I think I'll go try to hurt someone with a book! And a slice of pizza!

[waste gate]

Skybirds post is a great advertisement for parental invovlement.

[U-533]

Sometimes I play SHII for 12 hours at a time...

No wonder I threaten to torpedo people in traffic...

:roll:

[Heibges]

Personally, I blame Clint Eastwood.

I am a huge John Wayne fan, and in his movies he was the hero. Except, of course, for The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallane, because he does kind of bushwack old Lee Marvin.

But Clint Eastwood and the Cult of the Anti-hero, really demonstrated a change in how American's thought of themselves.

[P_Funk]

Blaming any and all media for causing violent behavior is, as has been said, an attempt to create an easily identified reason for something happening.

The Columbine kids listened to Marilyn Manson.

Remember the Judas Priest kids that killed themselves?

Long before video games they were saying that Dungeons and Dragons led to violent behavior (and blasphemy). Before that it was Rock and Roll. Before that it was Jazz.

There are always going to be puritanical agitators trying to make some point about how society is poisoned by some evil form of entertainment. Thats not a rip at christians. I use puritanical in its most broad religious and un religious sense. Some people actually want a Gestapo.

Video Games are today's Rock and Roll. In 25 years it'll probably be some preacher on the TV at 9 am on a Sunday saying "The Holodeck is poisoning the minds of our children!" and Dr. Phil with no hair and a colostomy bag saying "Smellovision is the root cause of violence in the work place. We need to OWN our feelings and BUY MY BOOK!".

I think its funny that they always want to find some grand, broad reason behind an individual acting the way he is when the real signs are in his home life, his upbringing, and his cultural background. I don't think its rascist to say that asian immigrant families often put lots of extreme pressure on their children. I've met too many asian kids that told me they were gonna freak out over a grade 11 quiz. I don't think theres a single reason he was like that but its probably a cumulative effect ofhis upbringing in one way or another.

[GSpector]

I've heard all the excuses in the media and print since I was a kid some 30 years ago.

I believed then as I believe now. The form the kids use to escape positive social contact, let it be Hard Rock music, Drugs, Gangs , or Violent video games, it still comes down to anti-social behavior.

These anti-social behaviors these young adults and kids have is not due to any of the above activities. They are anti-social because either they are not mentally capable of being social (rare) or they have never learned to be socially active in a positive way.

I have seen to many kids that think their parents don't like them, or won't spend time with them and the parent think their kids don't like them and don't want to spend time with them. The real problem is that many of the kids seem to want adults to be mind readers and just know how they feel and what they are thinking.

What ends up happening is the kids sit in their room doing what ever they can to occupy their minds thinking that if their parent really cared, they'd come up and invite them to do something. The parents now, thinks the kids just want to be left alone when inside the kid is screaming for attention and this just builds a wall of separation.

Parents really need to be a part of their kids lives. Read a book to the young ones and go to the park, take the slightly older ones to sport events, movies, get involved in hands on activities. For the older kids, talk to them like they are adults and include them in family talks even if it's just to voice opinion but help them to be prepare to be adults.

The problem is not the activity that's anti-social, the problem is what made them become anti-social. The problem starts at home and guess what, the solution is also in the home. When these kids become adults, the problem then becomes societies problem and if it to out of control, the solution then is not good for anyone.

How hard is it really to just say to your kids "Hey, how was your day?" or even give a compliment when a child either does well or at least did their best? I just don't see it these days, and I see it less every year.

Just a thought to the many parents on this site. If you have kids, and you know parents of kids that just seem like loners, invite them over or maybe to a family outing. Little things like that can do wonders for the young.

I know this works because I grew up in a household were my father, with all his money, could find very little time for me or my 2 Brothers. My twin and I would go over to a neighbors house or parents of my friends would invite me over for a movie, to get pizza, boat trip or even for a whole weekend. Both my twin and I turned out alright since he too was invited to social activities, we still have social issues but we can be social. I live here in Colorado. I have to make an effort to go out and be with others but I try to have fun.

On the contrast, my younger brother did very little with others until he decided to be anti-social, He decided to join gangs and get into drugs ,listen to hard rock music all while living at home. He ran away 3 times. By the time our neighbor was able to get legal custody of him, he was to anti-social to want to change. He again ran away. He's 37 now and lives on and off the streets. Has 2 kids he does not see and is not able to care for and in and out of rehab in California.

[SUBMAN1]

Good old ball and chain. ;)
Yeah. She says I got 15 minutes from now right now too! :cry: :|\\

[Tchocky]

How many who disagree with the thread title's premise posted on the Gangs/Rap thread?

just curious

[Letum]

How many who disagree with the thread title's premise posted on the Gangs/Rap thread?

just curious
Very good point.

[Tchocky]

I don't want to accuse anyone of anything here, I just cant be bothered mixing and matching statements from both threads ;)

But, it seems people are always less happy when an activity they enjoy is questioned, than when it's one they take no part in.

[fatty]

Although my view is hardly based on any serious study, it seemed like during my (short) job as a video game sales clerk that these characters were a dime-a-dozen.

Perhaps 80% of the kids who came into my store were extraordinarily pale, usually smelled really nasty, kept to themselves, dark clothes, etc. etc. We were required to say hello to anyone entering the store and these kids just kept their heads down and headed straight to the World of Warcraft displays. It is really amazing how much money some of these young fellows would dump into WoW game cards and such.

I agree with Skybird that there is an overarching problem re:the fetishizing of violence. But also I think video games do have SOME story to tell in these kinds of situations; some people can handle them, some cannot.

[The Avon Lady]

Sometimes I play SHII for 12 hours at a time...

No wonder I threaten to torpedo people in traffic...

:roll:
What a waste! :down:

We use our deck gun. :yep:

[HunterICX]

Ban videogames?

fine! but ban MOVIES FIRST:yep:

[Godalmighty83]

You really push it far here. first you say there is no proof

where? i said no such thing, you seem to have taken my post as an attack on you which it wasnt.

[Skybird]

You really push it far here. first you say there is no proof

where? i said no such thing, you seem to have taken my post as an attack on you which it wasnt.
No, I do not feel personally attacked.

You wrote:

"2, gamings effects on the intellect are far from proven either way, pro-gamers often have well above average IQ's and 'action' gaming in general is good for brain activity, slow pace games that dont stimulate are not so good for you."

Thus my response.

[Heibges]

I totally agree that is fully the parents' responsibility.

One thing you just admit is that the military would not use these videogames to desensitize its soldiers to violence if it wasn't effective.

This goes back to WWII where the army discovered that, in an infantry unit, only 15% to 20% of the infantryman in the unit (meaning not counting cooks and supply clerks, but only guys with rifles) actually took aim and fired at the enemy. It seems that in the 1940's young American boys were much more afraid of killing someone than they were of being killed themselves.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Sometimes I play SHII for 12 hours at a time...

No wonder I threaten to torpedo people in traffic...

:roll: What a waste! :down:

We use our deck gun. :yep:


:rotfl::rotfl:

[GlobalExplorer]

Kids go to their schools and kill everyone because they don't want to live anymore. Not because they have played the wrong game.

Of course games often deliver inspiration for how they will go on about their killings. But then they shouldn't be allowed to watch the news either!

I don't know the exact figures but in a typical modern country there are already millions of people playing computer games, mostly violent ones. In a couple of years, there will be only a certain fraction of people who don't do it.

Actually I think video games are good to get rid of aggression, and they improve a lot of skills. I wonder how many crimes have never been done because somebody could channel their boredom and aggression into playing a game, or watching a movie?

[STEED]

Ban videogames?

fine! but ban MOVIES FIRST:yep:

You forgot the TV and the radio and books. Are what the heck ban everything. Time to cut the grass, wait a minute that makes me angry.

[GSpector]

This goes back to WWII where the army discovered that, in an infantry unit, only 15% to 20% of the infantryman in the unit (meaning not counting cooks and supply clerks, but only guys with rifles) actually took aim and fired at the enemy. It seems that in the 1940's young American boys were much more afraid of killing someone than they were of being killed themselves.

If I am not mistaken, it was Richard Bong that had shot down a record number of Aircraft in WWII (awarded CMOH), before he actually found out that he was actually killing pilots. For some reason, he just kept thinking that he just shot down the planes but the pilots would return.

After finding out this information, he was unfit to fly because he was shaken up so bad with grief. He later became a flight instructor then a Test Pilot for Lockheed. Died in a P-80 test flight after ejecting shortly after take off.

[GlobalExplorer]

GSpector, that story sounds a bit exaggerated. Otherwise Richard Bong must have been quite a simple simon, which I don't believe.

[Skybird]

Kids go to their schools and kill everyone because they don't want to live anymore. Not because they have played the wrong game.
That is wrong, as a matter of fact. Some facts from psychotherapy: most suicide attempts are meant as sending a signal, a desperate call for help. Most candidates that survive are actually thankful for having been saved. Another fact: amok runs are often conducted by people (if they are not mentally ill in a psychiatric understanding, for example be psychotic) who want to penaluize others, who want to teach others a lecture for misunderstandin g themslves or doing themselves injustice, as they perceive it. The explanation attempt of "people go amok because they want to die" is to short-reaching, and wrong. The intention is another one, but includes the willingness (sometimes deriving from an irrational feeling of "I am God/superman and noone can stop me") to get killed in the attempt to carry out the intention.

From what is known about the amok shooter in virginia, he suffered from an obviously very severe personality disorder. Frightening that such people can get legal acess to firearms so easily, like I would buy a piece of butter in a store.

Of course games often deliver inspiration for how they will go on about their killings. But then they shouldn't be allowed to watch the news either!

Call it TV and movies. As I said, the Western culture is dominated by american influence, and that makes it a culture with a strong love for explicit illustrations of violance and brutality.

I don't know the exact figures but in a typical modern country there are already millions of people playing computer games, mostly violent ones. In a couple of years, there will be only a certain fraction of people who don't do it.

That is scary, isn't it?

Actually I think video games are good to get rid of aggression, and they improve a lot of skills.

A lot of skills? For example? See what I wrote about findings in related examinations on page one of this thread. And on the part where you say they help to get rid of aggression: I agree, they can help. but only when you are a healthy personality yourself. See what I wrote before about vulnerability theories and factor that help to stabilize or destabilize your character.

I wonder how many crimes have never been done because somebody could channel their boredom and aggression into playing a game, or watching a movie?

I also wonder how many crimes have been committed because a violant scene from a game or movie gave the attacker the final push needed to get it going, and how many crimes try to copy patterns and actions that had been observed in films and games before.

[micky1up]

sorry this killer dosent look like the pro typical gamer for one hes to clean and if we really want to go to town about forms of media and effects on killing im sure the bible has plenty to answer for

[GlobalExplorer]

Skybird, I already said that I believe that video games, films, and other forms of escapism are preventing more crimes than they cause (an opinion that is hard to prove), and all I could do would be to repeat this.

And while I have read some intelligent stuff from you here and elsewhere, I refuse to discuss if your posts always go over two pages and try to cover too many different directions, like the connection to what you call "american" culture, and which I don't think was brought up in a appropriate manner.

So keep it a bit more focussed would you?

[Ostfriese]

sorry this killer dosent look like the pro typical gamer for one hes to clean and if we really want to go to town about forms of media and effects on killing im sure the bible has plenty to answer for

But video games are an easy answer to a very difficult question. Blame the games (the movies! black coats!), so you don't have to deal with the real problems Cho Seung-hui had, and with the problem that so many noticed that he was more than just a strange guy, but failed to do just anything.

By blaming games you offer a seemingly logical solution and you don't have to stir up uncomfortable topics.

[GSpector]

GSpector, that story sounds a bit exaggerated. Otherwise Richard Bong must have been quite a simple simon, which I don't believe.

"Bong described combat flying as fun and a great game that made life interesting."
Source: http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html

"It was at Hamilton that Bong first raised the ire and the admiration of Major General George C. Kenney, commanding General of the Fourth Air Force. The field's location resulted in some aerial antics by Bong, such as "looping the loop" around the center span of the Golden Gate Bridge in his P-38, and waving to stenographers in office buildings as he flew along Market Street. But more serious was his blowing clean wash off a clothesline in Oakland. That was the last straw for Kenney, who chewed him out and told him, "Monday morning you check this address out in Oakland and if the woman has any washing to be hung out on the line, you do it for her. Then you hang around being useful - mowing the lawn or something - and when the clothes are dry, take them off the line and bring them into the house. And don't drop any of them on the ground or you will have to wash them all over again. I want this woman to think we are good for something else besides annoying people. Now get out of here before I get mad and change my mind. That's all!" ..... National Aviation Hall of Fame"
Source: http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm (http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm)

The day after his 40th kill, Major Richard Bong was standing on the Airfield of Mindoro Air Base with other pilots when he saw a P-38 shot down a Zero. What made him realize what was really happening was when he noticed the Zero pilot jump from the plane and never opened the chute. It was at that moment that he realized it was not a game and he remembered all 40 Kills to his record. He never flew in combat since.
Source: Medal of Honor by Dark Horse, issue 1.

On August 6, 1945 (the day the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima) Dick Bong was killed when the P-80 he was testing stalled on takeoff and he bailed out at low altitude. His body, partially wrapped in the shrouds of his parachute, was found 100 feet from the plane's jet engine. On 8 August 1945 he was burried in the Poplar cemetary, Poplar, Wisconsin. (http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/2375.html)
Source: http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm (http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm)

[Heibges]

This goes back to WWII where the army discovered that, in an infantry unit, only 15% to 20% of the infantryman in the unit (meaning not counting cooks and supply clerks, but only guys with rifles) actually took aim and fired at the enemy. It seems that in the 1940's young American boys were much more afraid of killing someone than they were of being killed themselves.

If I am not mistaken, it was Richard Bong that had shot down a record number of Aircraft in WWII (awarded CMOH), before he actually found out that he was actually killing pilots. For some reason, he just kept thinking that he just shot down the planes but the pilots would return.

After finding out this information, he was unfit to fly because he was shaken up so bad with grief. He later became a flight instructor then a Test Pilot for Lockheed. Died in a P-80 test flight after ejecting shortly after take off.

If that story is true it is very interesting. I think Richard Bong gets little press, just because his name is Richard Bong.

[GlobalExplorer]

By blaming games you offer a seemingly logical solution and you don't have to stir up uncomfortable topics.

I think that's called overgeneralization, and it always gives cheap answers to difficult problems ;)

And yes, if that story about Bong is true, he must have been some sort of guy like Forest Gump. But, who cares, he can still have been a damn fine pilot ..

[Heibges]

GSpector, that story sounds a bit exaggerated. Otherwise Richard Bong must have been quite a simple simon, which I don't believe.

"Bong described combat flying as fun and a great game that made life interesting."
Source: http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_bong.html

"It was at Hamilton that Bong first raised the ire and the admiration of Major General George C. Kenney, commanding General of the Fourth Air Force. The field's location resulted in some aerial antics by Bong, such as "looping the loop" around the center span of the Golden Gate Bridge in his P-38, and waving to stenographers in office buildings as he flew along Market Street. But more serious was his blowing clean wash off a clothesline in Oakland. That was the last straw for Kenney, who chewed him out and told him, "Monday morning you check this address out in Oakland and if the woman has any washing to be hung out on the line, you do it for her. Then you hang around being useful - mowing the lawn or something - and when the clothes are dry, take them off the line and bring them into the house. And don't drop any of them on the ground or you will have to wash them all over again. I want this woman to think we are good for something else besides annoying people. Now get out of here before I get mad and change my mind. That's all!" ..... National Aviation Hall of Fame"
Source: http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm (http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm)

The day after his 40th kill, Major Richard Bong was standing on the Airfield of Mindoro Air Base with other pilots when he saw a P-38 shot down a Zero. What made him realize what was really happening was when he noticed the Zero pilot jump from the plane and never opened the chute. It was at that moment that he realized it was not a game and he remembered all 40 Kills to his record. He never flew in combat since.
Source: Medal of Honor by Dark Horse, issue 1.

On August 6, 1945 (the day the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima) Dick Bong was killed when the P-80 he was testing stalled on takeoff and he bailed out at low altitude. His body, partially wrapped in the shrouds of his parachute, was found 100 feet from the plane's jet engine. On 8 August 1945 he was burried in the Poplar cemetary, Poplar, Wisconsin. (http://www.findagrave.com/pictures/2375.html)
Source: http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm (http://usfighter.tripod.com/bong.htm)

I think what they mean is that seeing the Zero shot down from that perspective really brought it home to Bong. As tankers, we were taught to think of shooting at another tank as shooting at a piece of equipment not at the three men inside.

[Skybird]

Skybird, I already said that I believe that video games, films, and other forms of escapism are preventing more crimes than they cause (an opinion that is hard to prove), and all I could do would be to repeat this.

And while I have read some intelligent stuff from you here and elsewhere, I refuse to discuss if your posts always go over two pages and try to cover too many different directions, like the connection to what you call &quot;american&quot; culture, and which I don't think was brought up in a appropriate manner.

So keep it a bit more focussed would you?
It is focussed. But it is unreasonable to isolate games from the cultural setting in which they pop up. You NEED to look at the whole culture. I said earlier that those people saying that games do not cause violance are right and wrong at the same time, you remember? Games today are a greater business than movie business (!), they have become a major part of contemporary culture, no matter if I or others like that or not. - I just objected to your opinion of violant media things, or games, preventing crimes exclusively, and said why I do think that: by pointing out that it works the other way as well. This right to state a different opinion you must grant me as long as I found it by arguments and do not become personally offending.

[Ostfriese]

I think that's called overgeneralization, and it always gives cheap answers to difficult problems ;)


Sure there are always easy answers, but why doing copley analysis if many people are pleased with the easy answer ;) Look at our beloved German politicians, after Erfurt and Emsdetten. Did anyone care about the real problems of those hot-wired brains? Of course not. All we got is 'ban the games, everything will be allright'.

Wem sag ich das eigentlich? :doh::D

[micky1up]

I totally agree that is fully the parents' responsibility.

One thing you just admit is that the military would not use these videogames to desensitize its soldiers to violence if it wasn't effective.

This goes back to WWII where the army discovered that, in an infantry unit, only 15% to 20% of the infantryman in the unit (meaning not counting cooks and supply clerks, but only guys with rifles) actually took aim and fired at the enemy. It seems that in the 1940's young American boys were much more afraid of killing someone than they were of being killed themselves.


yes but desensitizing and turning someone into a mass killer of innocents are two completely different things

[GlobalExplorer]

I think that's called overgeneralization, and it always gives cheap answers to difficult problems ;)


Sure there are always easy answers, but why doing copley analysis if many people are pleased with the easy answer ;) Look at our beloved German politicians, after Erfurt and Emsdetten. Did anyone care about the real problems of those hot-wired brains? Of course not. All we got is 'ban the games, everything will be allright'.

Wem sag ich das eigentlich? :doh::D

What is really provoking me is that these people (i.e. our politicians) are convinced they are doing the right thing - when in fact they are distracting from the real problems and insulting you / me / millions of others if they speak about the infamous "Killerspiele" - does that meann we are killers or what?

[Ostfriese]

What is really provoking me is that these people (i.e. our politicians) are convinced they are doing the right thing...

I don't think so. They know that it's rubbish, but this way no one can accuse them of being lazy and not doing anything. And people who don't know anything about games are easily convinced.

[joea]

The whole thing is bizzare and incoherent. While I agree with Skybird we do need to look globally at society and its attitude and increasing tolerance towards violence, just copping out like our beloved leaders are doing by pointing their finger at video games. There is a lot of incoherence here.

Example, I went into the store mulling over whether to actually pick up SH4 or not. I looked and saw the UBI rating system of icons one for age the other relating to the content ...SH4 had +7 age rating and "violent scenes". Il-2 46 on the other hand had 12+ and "swearing" ... :doh:

Excuse me, yes swearing is there in Il-2 (God____, sch___se and some incomprehensible Russian among others) but is it really less violent than SH4??

You can kill pilots in their chutes, strafe little guys running from truck convoys, bomb presumably inhabited towns and cites (though actually empty) ...no more blood on glass like earlier versions perhaps.

In SH4 you get to blow up ships with little guys on em, who apparently fall over....or man lifeboats (which however can't be sunk by would be Mush Mortons) the little guys could get thrown in the air by explosions in SH3 too.

So simulated violence is ok as long as you keep the illusion of destroying machines as in Il-2 but not with a human element as in SH3 and SH4. Does this make sense to you all? :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

Game rating doesn't exist to make sense joea, it exists to give politician's families/friends/allies jobs, besides from the guys who work at the rating board themselves, whoever these people are.

[Tchocky]

http://gaygamer.net/2007/04/warrant_reveals_no_games_in_ch.html

[baggygreen]

As far as im concerned, people who blame gaming, or tv, or movies or whatever else are only part right.

blame cannot be taken from parents, who ultimately should be the most influential people on a child. If you cant teach a child the difference between right and wrong, and how to keep friends by not ripping the head and legs off lucy's barbie doll, then there is something wrong.

its really not that difficult. as kids, you copy what you see. power rangers caused a stir here many moons ago, because of the rise in injuries caused by kids playing in the yard as power rangers. Youthful exuberence, sure. But why is it so tough to tell your kid "hey, these guys are special, they've been trained how to be power rangers." the inevitable response is how, can i do it too, the answer to which is yes - you take your kid to a martial arts studio where they can train, get rid of so much energy, feel like a power ranger and most importantly, while being active they're making friends and learning self-control!

i've said it before, you cant control totally how much of an influence other people and sources have on your kid. but YOU as a parent have the influence in the early years of development, when (i believe) a persons personality and outlook is shaped.

[kiwi_2005]

"Postal" was a sick game, more just plain stupid for instance in the game you could get your character to urinate on ppl?

Yet gamers saying postal rocks and it rocked only because of the violence and stupidity....