Are you a gamer in the States? Read this and act.


Recommended Posts

I would like to introduce everyone to House Bill H.R.231.IH.

This bill would require that a video game, rated T (Teen) or higher, carry a clear and conspicuous sign reading "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.

This has been proven time and time again to be a blatant lie.

http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html

http://www.switched.com/2008/05/17/violent-video-games-dont-cause-violence-says-new-book/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-unaffected-by-violent-games/2007/04/01/1175366055463.html

This bill needs to be exposed for the truth and I'm encouraging all of my fellow state side gamers to write their congressmen/women about it as soon as possible and get it taken out of the voting process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to introduce everyone to House Bill H.R.231.IH.

This bill would require that a video game, rated T (Teen) or higher, carry a clear and conspicuous sign reading "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.

This has been proven time and time again to be a blatant lie.

http://www.physorg.com/news5758.html

http://www.switched.com/2008/05/17/violent-video-games-dont-cause-violence-says-new-book/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-unaffected-by-violent-games/2007/04/01/1175366055463.html

This bill needs to be exposed for the truth and I'm encouraging all of my fellow state side gamers to write their congressmen/women about it as soon as possible and get it taken out of the voting process.

I read a study showing a connection to the role played in video games and violence (for example, a game were you don't play a good guy and commit violent acts vs playing the good guy and committing violent acts) makes a giant difference here. Playing a good guy did not increase violence or aggression while playing a bad guy did tend to (If I find the study I will post it.

Let me guess who introduce this bill... Ah, a Republican.

Just to clear things up, this person promoting this facist bill is a DEMOCRAT and 4 out of the 5 co sponsors are, you guessed it DEMOCRATS. But far be it from me to point out that liberals dont check their facts :p. Changed your post rather sneakily didn't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a study showing a connection to the role played in video games and violence (for example, a game were you don't play a good guy and commit violent acts vs playing the good guy and committing violent acts) makes a giant difference here. Playing a good guy did not increase violence or aggression while playing a bad guy did tend to (If I find the study I will post it.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/21/researcher-no-link-between-violent-games-amp-school-shootings

Writing for the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Prof. Christopher Ferguson criticizes the methodology used in earlier research linking games to violence and aggression. He also points out that no evidence of violent game play was found in recent high-profile incidents such as the Virginia Tech massacre, the Utah Trolley Stop mall shooting and the February, 2008 shooting on the campus of Northern Illinois University.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/28/violent-games-dont-cause-youth-violence-says-usc-sociologist

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/05/10/video-games-dont-cause-children-to-be-violent.html

This last one should be a big read for you..it's written by Michael D. Gallagher who is the president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/01/21/researcher-no-link-between-violent-games-amp-school-shootings

Writing for the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Prof. Christopher Ferguson criticizes the methodology used in earlier research linking games to violence and aggression. He also points out that no evidence of violent game play was found in recent high-profile incidents such as the Virginia Tech massacre, the Utah Trolley Stop mall shooting and the February, 2008 shooting on the campus of Northern Illinois University.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/02/28/violent-games-dont-cause-youth-violence-says-usc-sociologist

http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/05/10/video-games-dont-cause-children-to-be-violent.html

This last one should be a big read for you..it's written by Michael D. Gallagher who is the president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association.

Maybe you misread what I said? and it doesn't matter even if it did increase violence, that wouldn't make the bill any less fascist. also to play devils advocate a bit, your quoting the president of the Entertainment Software Association as a source? A bit biased don't you think? to play devils advocate even more You might want to read this and I can post many more including some newer than your study. Now I personally disagree with these studies as I think the APA follows a liberal agenda (and for some reasons liberals don't like video games).

The Effect of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence, Nicholas L. Carnagey a, Craig A. Anderson b, Brad J. Bushman, 2006, The Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you misread what I said? and it doesn't matter even if it did increase violence, that wouldn't make the bill any less fascist.

Why do you think I'm linking EVERYONE I can to this as fast as possible? .

Hell I even put it up on digg. I doubt it'll be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care for this either way and I don't live in the United States, but I'm going to point out a few things in those articles were linked to that indicate an underlying bias and the use of wording that is ambiguous or open to interpretation:

1. Physorg:

- Title: "No strong link seen between violent video games and aggression" - So there is a 'medium-strength' link? Or a weak link? What do they mean by "no strong link"?

- Body: "“I’m not saying some games don’t lead to aggression, but I am saying the data are not there yet,” Williams said. “Until we have more long-term studies, I don’t think we should make strong predictions about long-term effects, especially given this finding.”" - Basically it states that he has no idea. And there is not enough data for him to make a strong conclusion.

- Body: "According to Williams, researchers have suspected a strong linkage between games and aggression “but, with the exception of relatively short-term effects on young adults and children, they have yet to demonstrate this link.”" - What are these short-term effects? How long is the duration that they call short-term? If the short-term is 24 hours and the person plays it at least once in 24 hours, would that not mean that they will constantly be in the "exception" zone?

2. Switched:

- Body: "However, they also found that kids who played M-rated games were actually more likely to get into fights than those who didn't, 51-percent vs. 28-percent. But, Olson and Kutner's findings didn't necessarily lead to blaming the games; instead, they concluded that the kids who are more likely to want to play those games probably have somewhat violent inclinations to begin with. More studies are still needed, according to the couple, but since you're not letting your kids play M-rated games anyay, you don't have to worry -- right?"

3. SMH:

- Title: "Most kids 'unaffected' by violent games" - Most kids? What about those who do not fall in the category of "most kids"?

- Body: "Video games will only make children more violent if they already have a tendency towards aggression, a new study has found." - There are cases where children can become more violent.

I don't know what kind of credibility the above publications have, but anything that uses words like "most", "probably", etc. and make use of double negatives to try to confuse the general public have to be looked at with some degree of skepticism. If you read the statements made by the researchers they are worded in such a way that they can always come back and state that they were misunderstood and what they really meant was __________.

So if the OP's statement "This has been proven time and time again to be a blatant lie." is based on those articles alone, it is unsubstantiated.

And on the other hand, the gist of "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." is not ever refuted by any of those articles. "has been linked to aggressive behaviour" does not mean everyone who plays violent games will be aggressive, it means that the authorities or whoever is responsible for this has evidence that suggests a link. Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read a study showing a connection to the role played in video games and violence (for example, a game were you don't play a good guy and commit violent acts vs playing the good guy and committing violent acts) makes a giant difference here. Playing a good guy did not increase violence or aggression while playing a bad guy did tend to (If I find the study I will post it.

Just to clear things up, this person promoting this facist bill is a DEMOCRAT and 4 out of the 5 co sponsors are, you guessed it DEMOCRATS. But far be it from me to point out that liberals dont check their facts :p. Changed your post rather sneakily didn't you?

You both confused me, I thought you changed his post lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think I'm linking EVERYONE I can to this as fast as possible? .

Hell I even put it up on digg. I doubt it'll be seen.

don't worry if it gets enough sponsors it'll pass, liberals have always voted against video games.

You both confused me, I thought you changed his post lol.

Absolutely not, I caught it while it still said republican, hit reply and he changed it after I started my reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love that our politicians have nothing better to sort out. Bunch of old men and women who just don't get video games to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this affects you and offends you because...

Because I'm a tax payer and I don't like seeing my money spent on crap that's a proven lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...because its one step closer to banning violent videogames?

I don't see how a warning label is a step closer to anything, except not letting little kids play something they probably shouldn't anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I'm a tax payer and I don't like seeing my money spent on crap that's a proven lie.

Did you read my reply? If they made a statement that read "Violent video games will cause aggressive behavior", that would be a lie. But the statement reads "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." and that is not a lie. And none of those articles you've linked to logically say that the statement they are going to include is a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I'm a tax payer and I don't like seeing my money spent on crap that's a proven lie.

If its not this law, it will be another just as ridiculous. My point is, why do you waste your breath? in the end it really does not affect you.

...because its one step closer to banning violent videogames?

Hardly. You dont see other products with warnings like alcohol or cigarretes being banned. Gaming industry generate too much money to be crippled like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because its untrue in most cases it doesnt increase aggressive behavior, if this is allowed then there will be a violent game that will catch attention and because of the precedent set by adding a simple label saying violent games cause aggression then it might get banned and then eventually someone who is more powerful/influential than Jack Thompson was could try and get all violent games banned by precedent of a simple label.

Just because you dont care doesnt mean everyone doesnt care. If you dont care, jog on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...because its one step closer to banning violent videogames?

For someone who believes the slippery slope argument is a fallacy (said so in other specific threads) your certainly making use of it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its not this law, it will be another just as ridiculous. My point is, why do you waste your breath? in the end it really does not affect you.

Hardly. You dont see other products with warnings like alcohol or cigarretes being banned. Gaming industry generate too much money to be crippled like that.

Im pretty sure tobacco and alcohol have extra duties/tax added to them? they do in the UK. Games do not.

For someone who believes the slippery slope argument is a fallacy (said so in other specific threads) your certainly making use of it here.

Depends on the context, videogames have a history of lunatics like Jack Thompson trying to get them banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure tobacco and alcohol have extra duties/tax added to them? they do in the UK. Games do not.

Depends on the context, videogames have a history of lunatics like Jack Thompson trying to get them banned.

No your picking and choosing, its either a fallacy or it isn't. Be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No your picking and choosing, its either a fallacy or it isn't. Be consistent.

Not that this has anything to do with a thread about videogames, anti gay people can pick and choose then so can i.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that this has anything to do with a thread about videogames, anti gay people can pick and choose then so can i.

But i'm not picking and choosing I believe their is slippery slope in this video game thing, your the only one picking and choosing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read my reply? If they made a statement that read "Violent video games will cause aggressive behavior", that would be a lie. But the statement reads "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." and that is not a lie. And none of those articles you've linked to logically say that the statement they are going to include is a lie.

Thank you, someone else took the time to read that line

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most-kids-unaffected-by-violent-games/2007/04/01/1175366055463.html

A Swinburne University of Technology study of 120 children aged 11 to 15 revealed children prone to worrying, neurotic behaviour and predisposed to aggression were likely to be more aggressive after playing violent video games.

But for the majority of children there was no difference in behaviour, according to the research published in the Psychology, Crime and Law journal.

And thats the thing, for politicians they dont need to prove all cases or even majority, they just need to show that "it can happen" for them to use that argument. So its really not a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up, this person promoting this facist bill is a DEMOCRAT and 4 out of the 5 co sponsors are, you guessed it DEMOCRATS. But far be it from me to point out that liberals dont check their facts :p. Changed your post rather sneakily didn't you?

Yeah, do they ever? It seems to be AWFULLY rare...

As for the OP, I agree that this is rather ridiculous at this point. They are ALWAYS trying to pass laws to restrict video games and link them to bad behavior, when there are SO many things that are much more likely to produce someone that would be involved in violent crimes... I could argue that children growing up in a household that is on government assistance, is more likely to grow up to commit violent crimes than one that grows up with working parents, but should assistance programs come with such a warning also?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.