judge recommends that jack thompson be found guilty

Post Reply New Topic

So, in other words, there's a direct link.

what a surprise, media sources portraying a certain behavioral pattern as acceptable has a direct influence on most of the people who take in such media.


....seriously, is this a shock to anyone? most people are dumb little sheep and so of course what they see portrayed in the media as acceptable is what ends up defining their behavior and levels of what's acceptable.

By replying to this and acknowledging nothing else that I've said, you prove yourself to be a hypocrite, ignoring all the evidence against your point while saying gamers do the same.

Nice.

Sorry for thinking that you're acknowledging that there is a direct link is the most important part of your post. I'll respond to the rest of it if you'd like.



That's a rather meaningless figure as macro trends in the culture cannot be pinpointed on any one source. Video games can have a detrimental effect, but be masked by other positive cultural forces.



As I stated in the last post, other contributing factors need to be considered. But any one of those factors can also point to the other and say "well it's not only me" and be obsolved from responsibility from your (faulty) logic.



Now we're mistaking a well-established increase in aggression with psychosis.

The two are not the same. People's responses can be subtley altered by even minor things. Snowball effects happen, and there's a fight/shooting/murder.

You can't dismiss these things by laying it all on the heads of crazy people as if they're the only people who commit acts of violence.

Now that I've taken apart your post. I state again that the most important part was that you agreed that there is a direct link that has been scientifically proven between agression and violent media.

Jack Thompson is an ambulance chasing gimp who was more interested in furthering his career and political standing than helping any of the families he represented or holding any regard to the facts. Everything he says is an insult to gamer culture and an insult to decent human beings. I say good riddance and let's be done with him.

I hardly consider it "meaningless" that violent crime has decreased as violent gaming has increased in popularity, severity, and realism. I don't see any increase in "positive cultural forces," however--indeed, society in general seems to be deteriorating. The fact that despite all that deterioration, violent crime stats have gone DOWN (when they should be going UP), says something about the effect of violent video games. Regardless of whether or not they increase aggression, they do not increase the rates of violent crime. I do not see anything that could be counteracting the effects of their "aggression": America is a mess, with so much poverty, so many homeless people. s**t, 1 out of every 4 high school students has an STD. The culture of the impoverished glorifies a violent, sexist gangster lifestyle. There's constant racial tension, constant arguements about religion, there's intense homophobia, intense fear of both the government and terrorist groups from other countries, tons of people yearn for the government to be overthrown (bringing about a state of anarchy)--there's so much going on that should be making the crime rates sky high. But they're not. It's funny how throughout history, times like these have led to higher crime rates, an increase of violence, with just as MUCH aggression. Yet in modern day America that is not the case; the violent crime rates go down, as violent gaming gets more popular.



The fact is, though, that other factors are far more important. I won't kill someone from playing a video game. I'll kill someone because I'm crazy, or because my obsessive hatred for him drives me, or I do it by accident, or I need to do it to survive or else he'll kill me, or because it's the criminal life I've ended up having due to poverty and/or social pressure. A game in itself won't change anything significant in someone's lasting behavior. What WILL force them to behave in a violent way are the same things that always caused people to do so before video games were even invented.



I'm not saying crazy people are the only people who commit acts of violence. My point was every sane person can tell the difference between a video game and reality. Anyone who can't has problems, and is dangerous with or without a game.

And yes, snowball effects do happen, but snowball effects always involve a variety of factors. You can't pin it all on video games, and that's what people like Jack Thompson try to do. Even if you're not blaming everything on video games, it's still biased and naive to not even acknowledge how many FAR more important factors there are when determining whether or not someone commits an act of violence.



The fact that you think that's the most important part is your whole problem. You missed so much of what I was saying. First of all, I was not agreeing that there was a direct link. I was saying that some studies have shown that, but I don't believe you can say that those studies are completely accurate because there are too many other forces at play and too many contradictions to the studies. Also, we're talking specifically about VIDEO GAMES here, not violent TV, which, as I said, has been shown to be far more damaging--a point you completely failed to acknowledge. I do believe that in some cases video games CAN cause aggression, but that it's not a rule, that not everyone who plays violent games will be more aggressive. It's a CAN thing, not a WILL. And, again, it's never the most important factor.

Actually, I got it all. In fact I understood it better than you did.

I understand that you want to deny and minimize and continue to beat up on Jack Thompson (exactly what I came to this thread saying gamers did) in order to ignore the evidence that gaming does indeed contribute to violence.

It was all totally (and depressingly) expected.



Not really. A few outliers aside, the data's very clean. You just got caught and now don't want to own up to them.



And these people are few and far between and are responsible for a tiny fraction of the violent acts in the world. You're creating a straw man and knocking it down.

The fact is that most violent acts are committed by perfectly sane individuals capable over stupid, even petty things. It doesn't take a break from reality in order to kill somebody. Even putting out the spector of people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality shows bad faith on your part.



No. As I stated above, most killings are done on the spot. They happen because people just get pissed off and kill somebody.

You seem to have some fantasy that murders are done for specific reasons, but the truth is it's usually the heat of the moment. In other words in cases where an increase of aggression (perhaps exasperated by video games) would be most detrimental.

Also violence is not restricted to murders. Punching someone also counts.



And also a point I completely fail to care about. I'm not making a case that TV violence is harmless.

A week from now I'll have someone tell me that television violence is harmless too (using almost the same faulty standards of evidence as you). It's ironic that you're using television as a shield.

Why you think that "well it's not as bad as" is a winning argument I have no idea, but trust me, it's a big loser.



Please post where I've denied them. I'm not interested in obsolving people of their actions because the games made them do it.

However, I'm not in denial that the increase in aggression exists and I know enough about the nature of violent acts to realize that it could easily be a balance tipper between in a rapidly escalating situation.

You have no idea how slight an adjustment in emotional state can be the difference between both sides walking away and a trip to the emergency room. It's amazing how little it takes sometimes.



Oh please. Get your nose out of the news and take a look around at reality. Poverty is down. Employment is near where we historically considered full employment. Racism is down. Sexism is down. Homophobia is down. As you point out, crime is down. We're just beginning our 3rd minor recession in the past 26 years...an economic miracle.

I know it's an election year, but I'm tired about hearing how the sky is falling.

And I've no clue how STDs are going to cause violence unless kids heads are getting screwed up by syphilis.

And you just want to deny and minimize and continue to beat up on gamers (exactly why I argued with you in the first place) in order to continue to ignore the evidence that gaming does NOT contribute to violence.

It was all totally (and depressingly) expected.



Not really. You just don't want to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong about your stereotype of gamers, you don't want to admit that there is evidence on both sides, so you ignore it. Hypocrite.



I was NEVER the one saying every act of violence was commited by someone crazy, you just keep telling me that that's what I'm saying. I said in the bit you quoted that I wasn't saying that at all, but you act like I was saying, "Anyone who does something violent is crazy," rather than "There are tons and tons of things that cause people to be violent, but if someone is violent because they think that a video game is real, THEN they are crazy." I'm talking about the "Nut Cases" and what not who the media reports on going on shooting sprees because of video games, and no one else.



I'm not going to argue about whether or not gaming makes people violent. If you want to argue about that, go to a gaming politics forum. They have far better points to make than I. Why don't you go do that?

What I care about is you being disrespectful, and, yes, AGGRESSIVE to all gamers, while being just as ignorant as you claim all of them to be. You're prejudiced against them and lump them all into one category.



You're missing the point. The point is that Jack Thompson pins it all on games, ignoring all other factors. THAT is why gamers blame him.



Wow, no wonder you think games are to blame if you think everything else is so peachy keen. You're so wrong here I don't even know where to start. So I won't. You continue going on thinking all those things in YOUR reality. Meanwhile, I'll be in what -I- see as reality and say that the world is a f*****g mess.



Way to miss the point again. Seems intentional if you ask me.




I'm not using television as a shield, but when you're talking about "violent media," you can't lump TV and video games together when one has been shown to have TWICE the impact of the other. TWICE as much. That's not a tiny little bit. Yet here is what bothers me most of all: you don't troll around bashing people who watch violent TV and say, "No, violent TV doesn't increase my aggression." No, you're bashing GAMERS. You don't care if violent TV makes people aggressive, you just said it, yet you care that violent gaming makes people half as aggressive as violent TV does?

I don't think you care whether or not gaming truly increases aggression. I think you've got a prejudice against gamers.

Wow, Thomas, that's awfully aggressive of you, and awfully ignorant, too.

And maybe you're thinking, "Wow, he's being aggressive." Yes, I am. I admit it. But how do you feel when someone bashes an entire subculture you belong to, a subculture they clearly don't understand and don't WANT to understand? You feel angry. You don't need video games for that. It's yet another example of how one cannot pin it all on games--which Jack Thompson does, while making up evidence.

Again, if you want more evidence to chew on, feel free to go to a gaming politics forum and state your views there. In the meantime, try to be respectful, because that really is all that I ask for as a gamer: respect. I don't care if you don't like video games. I don't care if you think it makes people aggressive and/or violent. But I DO care if you're going to assume that all gamers are ignorant buffoons who don't have any good own reasons for believing what they do. I DO care if you're going to come into a thread that was made to make gamers happy, a triumph over ignorance, and then be an ass about it. I DO care if you're going to claim that gamers deny evidence, and then deny evidence yourself.

And now everyone who disagrees with you must just HATE gamers. Throwing up another strawman that I will now knock down.

I don't hate gamers or video games. What game hater stands in line for hours on launch day waiting for a Wii (lucky I did)? You probably know this already because I've posted dozens of times on this board. I know it gives you comfort to think that anyone who accepts the reality that gaming causes aggression in people is just a raving hater. So you willfully ignore the person in front of you and rant about some phantom that doesn't exist.

I play violent video games. I watch violent movies. Hell, I'll go a step further and tell you that I write violent fiction and hope that it gets produced into a movie someday. I just don't spend my days deluding myself that those actions don't have consiquences.



And here we go again with you. If gaming doesn't specifically create some nut cases in high profile shootings (who knows really) then it must not create violence at all.



And you're missing the point that I'm not defending Jack Thompson. I'm saying you're just as bad as him.

There IS a middle ground between Jack Thompson and video games not causing violence. As a matter of fact, the two of you are so extreme that there's a VAST middle ground between the two.



You have fun with that. Everything I said was true though.



Sorry for not being perceptive enough to see what STDs have to do with anything. I'm funny that way.



Semi-true and false.

Semi-true in that I'm not all that worked up about a link between violence in video games and don't much see what complaining about it can do anyway. I'm just as glad to see Nintendo's brand of gaming take off though.

False in that I don't have a prejudice against gamers. I have a prejudices against self-serving ignorance and logic that a 3-year-old could knock down.



An ignorant triumph over ignorance. I'm still waiting for actual evidence and not denials, minimizations, and Jack Thompson bashing.

A pox on both your houses I say!

Pokemon made me kick my dog. : /

Jack is good free publicity for games so I kinda don't want him to go, but he's full of crap so I kinda do want him to go.

I think it depends on the person, I've seen my brother get very violent playing games, but I on the other hand, never got that upset. Video games are like diet pills; some games effect some people some of the time.

Actually, I didn't know any of that. I'm sorry for my false judgement.

My point was not that anyone who disagrees with me hates gamers. Rather, you've been bashing a very degrading stereotype of them, and it's been very disrespectful.



Would you please stop putting words in my mouth? Again and again I said that I wasn't saying that at all, but do you listen? No! You put up your own straw men here, and below:



AGAIN you put words in my mouth and arguing with them. Did I say you were defending him? No, I did not, becuase I KNOW you're not defending Jack Thompson, I said that a long time ago. I bring him up because a) this topic is ABOUT Jack Thompson, and b) I'm explaining WHY gamers hate him so much.

You seem to believe that gamers hate Jack Thompson because he says that gaming makes people violent, when in fact gamers get worked up about him because he manufactures evidence, spreads lies, etc. I, for one, won't get worked up just because someone says games can make people more aggressive. I don't care if they believe that, that's their belief and they're entitled to it, because there is evidence supporting it. But there's ALSO evidence on the other side of the arguement, so I DO care if someone says that gamers are just being ignorant idiots, and undermine and ignore any evidence that does not support their own beliefs while bashing gamers for doing just that. It's biggoted and hypocritical and I have little patience for either of those things.

And I hardly think I'm that extreme when I acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of video games causing aggressive behavior in some people. I just don't believe there's necessarily a direct link because there are far too many factors at work. My own beliefs on the subject are actually quite neutral, for I acknowledge both sides of the arguement.



Oh, but I could say the same thing. See, now you're just being self-righteous.



They were just an example of how screwed up the world is. I guess you were not perceptive enough to see that.



I have the same prejudice which is why I felt obligated to say anything in the first place.

Oh, and good luck finding that 3-year old.



You're waiting for actual evidence? Okay, go to a gaming politics forum like I said. I'm no expert, but they're out there, and there IS evidence on both sides. I'm not interested in debating whether or not there is a link. I don't like these internet forum debates, that's why I avoid the politics forum these days.



I wish a pox on nobody's house. Not even Jack Thompson's. Poxes are a b***h... >.>

Then you should have kept your mouth shut from the beginning.

In the beginning, if you look, I told you to go to another thread so that everyone else could enjoy the moment. I didn't want to argue. But you wanted to so I played along....

Look, I won't bother going over this whole argument, so I'll put in my 100 dollars worth of opinion in :

*Jack Thompson is a quixotic w**ker and a right-wing Christian fundy. I am glad that he is going down for something.

*I have heard about the relationship between violent video games and aggression (I even have access to relevant papers). But this is true of any violent medium (I have a paper on the relationship between gangsta rap and aggression), and aggression itself can be resolved.

*Those who commit crimes after playing games almost always have some sort of psychological or societal defect in the first place. Violent video games do not act as a trigger, mostly, but rather as a catalyst, amplifying the psychopathy.


(Okay, I've said my $100 worth. There's the vault, please put the money in)

yeah alot of his things are baseless. I agree that video games might give people ideas but if you look at it another way it alows people to do it in a world other then the real ones.

Bottom line...the guy's an idiot.

I mean, read his correspondance with Scott Ramsoomair, author of VG Cats:

http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php