Research about violent games. Why are we negative?

@MikeGosot said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we?

You don't understand what free speech and liberty actually means. As an adult, you have the right to do, say, view, hear, think WHATEVER YOU WANT bar actively injuring another person through your actions. Playing Call of Duty does not injure another person, thus is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

I have full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. I also understand that we're not living in some utopian world. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. I'm not saying that I think COD is the reason for anyone going crazy, but if there ever is conclusive studies that show otherwise, then we have a responsibility to stop that. Take extra notice of the word conclusive.

No, you don't. The only one who has a responsibility to stop what a children may or may not do/play/watch/read is their parents. Not the government. There's no government responsibility in this subject.

I completly disagree. Everyone has a responsibility.

@Dagbiker said:

@Legion_ said:

What up duders. Patrick posted a article today regarding Obama's instructions to get the CDC to research links between violent video games and violent actions in the real world.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/obama-instructs-cdc-to-research-links-between-violent-media-and-real-life-violence/4521/

A lot of the comments seem to negative regarding the research. I can't understand that. I don't understand why everyone seems to be on the defensive. The way I see his, it is a win-win situation. One of two outcomes are possible,

1. They do the research, and find no relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, games are free to go.

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we? At that point, we would be no better than supporters of guns. They're always trying to find reasons for guns not be illegal, and grasp after straws to make silly arguments. Still, most people who have guns don't kill people with them, but I still think they should be illegal. Obviously, most people who play COD don't kill people, but if it shown to have a negative effect on our youths, and make them potential killers, then I'm all for a solution to that problem.

Of course, now there will come all sorts of subjective comments about how games are unfairly made a target to this or that. But instead of being on the defensive, let's go balls out. Show these people that they can do whatever tests they want, because we don't think games are bad for the development of young people. And if we are proven wrong? So be it, then that's on us, and we'll own up to it.

Don't be cowards!

I agree. Except for the part where you take a stance against guns., the First amendment isn't the right to hunt a deer, its the right to kill a man. People have misconstrued this to mean own guns. But it could just as easily mean knifes, or poison. It is the right to fight back, to defend your self.

It's the second amendment. And it clearly states that the purpose is to at all times have a well armed milita, because they were scared shitless that the brits would return. Between the army and the police force, I would say the states have a pretty good militia.

Because people are afraid, and they're looking for an easy explanation to something that's very complicated. They could spend $100M on the research but the mob is waiting for something to attack, and we saw that first hand when the people who made Mass Effect had "blood on their hands that will never come clean" because the brother of the shooter liked it on Facebook. The mob's chomping at the bit to irrationally tear into something, and gamers want to stay out of their way.

@Legion_: Why? This is not an attack or anything like that, it's a serious question. Why would "everyone" have a responsability? Why would the government have a responsability? Are you willing to give away the freedom of a parent to choose what his children can buy or not for security? Are you willing to give the government power enough to choose what you can or cannot consume?

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we?

You don't understand what free speech and liberty actually means. As an adult, you have the right to do, say, view, hear, think WHATEVER YOU WANT bar actively injuring another person through your actions. Playing Call of Duty does not injure another person, thus is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

I have full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. I also understand that we're not living in some utopian world. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. I'm not saying that I think COD is the reason for anyone going crazy, but if there ever is conclusive studies that show otherwise, then we have a responsibility to stop that. Take extra notice of the word conclusive.

No, it's clear you don't understand what liberty is. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. What you're suggesting is not that we have responsibility for our actions, but that the government needs to be responsible to make sure we never see the bad video games.

There are conclusive studies that show smoking causes health problems, but if I want to light up a smoke in my own fucking place, the government has no Goddamn right to intervene. What if they showed conclusive evidence that using the internet leads to 'negative psychological behavior' because someone went crazy after using the internet? Guess we need to turn the internet off for the safety of the American people.

I'm not American, but as the world's superpower what America does affects everyone else. And America electing to give up free speech because "we just can't handle it" will make slaves of us all.

Again, I have a full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. You obviously want to believe that we live in a utopia, and that's fine. I choose to belive otherwise, because I'm not a naiv idealist. I understand that every single person has a responsibility. We obviously disagree.

Your comment about smoking has nothing to do with this discussion. There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you. Again, I stress that I do not think that there is a conclusive connection, but if there is, I will own up to that. Why? Because I'll do everything in my power to create a better society.

I don't believe we live in a utopia, and I've said nothing to give this impression. I've said that every person does have responsibility for themselves. Stop strawmanning, and stop the personal attacks.

"There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you". Yes, and playing Call of Duty does not negatively affect those around you, just like owning a gun does not negatively affect those around you. You're attempting to legislate and set up government restrictions on legal acts that could possibly maybe sometimes lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time.

Consider this. There is a direct causal relationship between religious attendance and religious-inspired violence; murder-suicides, application of religious law that violates secular law, etc. This is a direct causality, you can't have 2 (religious-inspired violence) without 1 (religious attendance). Under your suggestion, since we are outlawing legal acts that could lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time, you'd suggest the censorship of religion. That's a direct violation of free speech.

You could bring up cars, there is a direct causal relationship between driving a car and running people over with cars... but the operation of motor vehicles is not a right, it's a privilege. Free speech on the other hands, is a right.

There's not a lot of things I'm militant about, I'm an athiest but I really don't care what religion people follow. I live life pretty clean but I don't care what drugs you use. But the one thing I am militant about is free speech. Because it's the only thing that has given us any of the modern luxury we enjoy. Without free speech, free inquiry, the liberty to do with myself whatever I want we'd all still be slaves working for an undemocratic sovereign. It's only that you've lived with all those benefits that you might fail to realize how crucial the right to free speech was in obtaining any of them.

It's not a personal attack. It's simply stating my opinion as a fact, just as you are doing when you say that I don't understand what liberty and free speech is.

I disagree. I absolutely think that owning a gun has a negative impact on society. I'm all for banning guns. As for video games, we don't know if they ar detremental yet. More research is needed, and that is why I welcome it. I'm not afraid of the results. There is already research that shows violent video games has a impact on your empathy in the long haul, as well as your aggression for a short period of time.

I don't agree at all with what your saying about religion. I'm not a religious man at all, but we all have to agree that there is a major difference in importance between games and religion. As for your other example, I think you're just doing what people are doing with video games. You're finding scapegoats. This disucssion is about video games, and the effect they might have on the development of young people.

Look, I know the importance of free speech, so don't lecture me. And I play a lot of violent video games. What I am saying is that I welcome this research. I'm interested in what they find out. Let's say they find nothing, then the public will get a better understanding of what a video game is, which is good. If they do find conclusive evidence to the contrary, then gaming has a problem.

As of right now, we don't have to be on the defensive. That's what I'm trying to say. Why aren't we welcoming research that will help us better understand the effects of our hobby?

I'm not stating 'my opinion' I'm stating what is clear; you don't understand the difference between actual liberty and state-sanctioned behavior. This isn't even a personal attack, this is just a clear misunderstanding that I'm trying to outline.

If you think that owning a gun has an actively negative impact on society, you just aren't looking at reality. The legal possession of a firearm does not victimize anyone in and of itself. The illegal use of firearms does, that's why there are laws against it. More research is not needed, this is a purely logical argument that you will never find 'social science' around. The possession of a gun does not victimize anyone anymore than the possession of a baseball bat does. Owning a baseball bat is legal, beating my girlfriend to death with a baseball bat however, is illegal. As for my empathy and aggression, my personal emotions are not circumspect to government law. I can feel however I want to feel. If I don't have any empathy for anyone, that's my choice. If I want to involve myself in activities that make me actively upset (Spelunky), that's my choice. You cannot send the government in to intervene in my personal life until I actually victimize someone else, or pose a credible threat. We figured this law out 800 years ago in the Magna Carta. What you suggest is indistinguishable from legislating against thoughtcrime. And I'm not being hyperbolic there; thoughtcrime is behaviors and attitudes the state deems antisocial and makes illegal.

There is not a major difference between the right to play games and the right to attend religion; both are guaranteed under free speech, and the possibility for either to lead to negative repercussions is not an acceptable justification to infringe on them. The ability to read, see, think, and say WHATEVER YOU WANT. You take away that right in one area, you provide no legal precedence to not take it away in any other area. Has nothing to do with scapegoating, it has to do with logic. Just because you say "we all have to agree" is not logic, it's just dogma. Why do we all have to agree, what evidence do you have that the right to believe in whatever religion you want and the right to view any media you want are not guaranteed under free speech?

You don't understand the importance of free speech, clearly. Welcome the research if you want, I don't care if the research says that playing video games leads to leprosy in 3.7% of cases. If it comes out and says video games lead to violence in 100% of all cases, I don't care. But the moment when you say "well then we need to stop it" you advocate the restriction of free thought and of responsibility. I've noticed when you mention "responsibility" you're not referring to a person's responsibility to make choices and accept their outcomes, you're referring to the government taking that responsibility and making choices for them. As an adult, if I want to play video games and possibly become violent, if I want to listen to rap music and possibly become violent, if I want to have a lot of unprotected sex with consenting adults and possibly catch super-AIDS, that's my responsibility. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure I do with myself what they demand.

Remember, I'm not arguing because "I lerv derm verder germs!" I'm here because I will not tolerate any affront to free speech. Realize that I will extend this to the Westboro lunatics and the Black Panthers and the Scientologists and any other band of insane fucks; I can disagree with them, I can argue with them and present how they're wrong, but I cannot infringe on their right to say, think, see or hear whatever they want. Because liberty and free speech supercedes anyone's personal offense or irrational fears.

@believer258 said:

@Brodehouse: Just for fun, let's say that, theoretically, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by several reputable organizations that a certain level of violence in video games would cause a very large percentage of people to desire a shooting spree. It doesn't - any dolt could see that, or so I wish - but if it did, would you still be all for not restricting violence in games?

I'm sure people themselves would restrict what they allow themselves to buy (personal responsibility!), which would lead to the producers modifying what they create in order to grab that market (hence why Die Hard is a PG-13 movie). That's fine, that's a series of people making choices and taking the responsibilities. But with this liberty, people who wish to view these 'dangerous' games would still be able to do so, even at possible personal risk. Because that's their right.

As I said; religious-inspired violence cannot exist without religious inspiration. But we cannot restrict people's right to religious inspiration, only the violence that it inspires. In Islam, the penalty for apostasy (leaving the religion) is death. In America, Muslims can believe and say anything they want about their religion, up until the point where someone commits a murder on an apostate. Because that is no longer personal, it actively infringes on the liberty of another (the right to life) with no legal cause. Hence, that person can be arrested for murder. You can arrest someone for murder, you can arrest someone for planning a murder, but you cannot arrest someone for being religious.

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we?

You don't understand what free speech and liberty actually means. As an adult, you have the right to do, say, view, hear, think WHATEVER YOU WANT bar actively injuring another person through your actions. Playing Call of Duty does not injure another person, thus is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

I have full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. I also understand that we're not living in some utopian world. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. I'm not saying that I think COD is the reason for anyone going crazy, but if there ever is conclusive studies that show otherwise, then we have a responsibility to stop that. Take extra notice of the word conclusive.

No, it's clear you don't understand what liberty is. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. What you're suggesting is not that we have responsibility for our actions, but that the government needs to be responsible to make sure we never see the bad video games.

There are conclusive studies that show smoking causes health problems, but if I want to light up a smoke in my own fucking place, the government has no Goddamn right to intervene. What if they showed conclusive evidence that using the internet leads to 'negative psychological behavior' because someone went crazy after using the internet? Guess we need to turn the internet off for the safety of the American people.

I'm not American, but as the world's superpower what America does affects everyone else. And America electing to give up free speech because "we just can't handle it" will make slaves of us all.

Again, I have a full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. You obviously want to believe that we live in a utopia, and that's fine. I choose to belive otherwise, because I'm not a naiv idealist. I understand that every single person has a responsibility. We obviously disagree.

Your comment about smoking has nothing to do with this discussion. There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you. Again, I stress that I do not think that there is a conclusive connection, but if there is, I will own up to that. Why? Because I'll do everything in my power to create a better society.

I don't believe we live in a utopia, and I've said nothing to give this impression. I've said that every person does have responsibility for themselves. Stop strawmanning, and stop the personal attacks.

"There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you". Yes, and playing Call of Duty does not negatively affect those around you, just like owning a gun does not negatively affect those around you. You're attempting to legislate and set up government restrictions on legal acts that could possibly maybe sometimes lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time.

Consider this. There is a direct causal relationship between religious attendance and religious-inspired violence; murder-suicides, application of religious law that violates secular law, etc. This is a direct causality, you can't have 2 (religious-inspired violence) without 1 (religious attendance). Under your suggestion, since we are outlawing legal acts that could lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time, you'd suggest the censorship of religion. That's a direct violation of free speech.

You could bring up cars, there is a direct causal relationship between driving a car and running people over with cars... but the operation of motor vehicles is not a right, it's a privilege. Free speech on the other hands, is a right.

There's not a lot of things I'm militant about, I'm an athiest but I really don't care what religion people follow. I live life pretty clean but I don't care what drugs you use. But the one thing I am militant about is free speech. Because it's the only thing that has given us any of the modern luxury we enjoy. Without free speech, free inquiry, the liberty to do with myself whatever I want we'd all still be slaves working for an undemocratic sovereign. It's only that you've lived with all those benefits that you might fail to realize how crucial the right to free speech was in obtaining any of them.

It's not a personal attack. It's simply stating my opinion as a fact, just as you are doing when you say that I don't understand what liberty and free speech is.

I disagree. I absolutely think that owning a gun has a negative impact on society. I'm all for banning guns. As for video games, we don't know if they ar detremental yet. More research is needed, and that is why I welcome it. I'm not afraid of the results. There is already research that shows violent video games has a impact on your empathy in the long haul, as well as your aggression for a short period of time.

I don't agree at all with what your saying about religion. I'm not a religious man at all, but we all have to agree that there is a major difference in importance between games and religion. As for your other example, I think you're just doing what people are doing with video games. You're finding scapegoats. This disucssion is about video games, and the effect they might have on the development of young people.

Look, I know the importance of free speech, so don't lecture me. And I play a lot of violent video games. What I am saying is that I welcome this research. I'm interested in what they find out. Let's say they find nothing, then the public will get a better understanding of what a video game is, which is good. If they do find conclusive evidence to the contrary, then gaming has a problem.

As of right now, we don't have to be on the defensive. That's what I'm trying to say. Why aren't we welcoming research that will help us better understand the effects of our hobby?

I'm not stating 'my opinion' I'm stating what is clear; you don't understand the difference between actual liberty and state-sanctioned behavior. This isn't even a personal attack, this is just a clear misunderstanding that I'm trying to outline.

If you think that owning a gun has an actively negative impact on society, you just aren't looking at reality. The legal possession of a firearm does not victimize anyone in and of itself. The illegal use of firearms does, that's why there are laws against it. More research is not needed, this is a purely logical argument that you will never find 'social science' around. The possession of a gun does not victimize anyone anymore than the possession of a baseball bat does. Owning a baseball bat is legal, beating my girlfriend to death with a baseball bat however, is illegal. As for my empathy and aggression, my personal emotions are not circumspect to government law. I can feel however I want to feel. If I don't have any empathy for anyone, that's my choice. If I want to involve myself in activities that make me actively upset (Spelunky), that's my choice. You cannot send the government in to intervene in my personal life until I actually victimize someone else, or pose a credible threat. We figured this law out 800 years ago in the Magna Carta. What you suggest is indistinguishable from legislating against thoughtcrime. And I'm not being hyperbolic there; thoughtcrime is behaviors and attitudes the state deems antisocial and makes illegal.

There is not a major difference between the right to play games and the right to attend religion; both are guaranteed under free speech, and the possibility for either to lead to negative repercussions is not an acceptable justification to infringe on them. The ability to read, see, think, and say WHATEVER YOU WANT. You take away that right in one area, you provide no legal precedence to not take it away in any other area. Has nothing to do with scapegoating, it has to do with logic. Just because you say "we all have to agree" is not logic, it's just dogma. Why do we all have to agree, what evidence do you have that the right to believe in whatever religion you want and the right to view any media you want are not guaranteed under free speech?

You don't understand the importance of free speech, clearly. Welcome the research if you want, I don't care if the research says that playing video games leads to leprosy in 3.7% of cases. If it comes out and says video games lead to violence in 100% of all cases, I don't care. But the moment when you say "well then we need to stop it" you advocate the restriction of free thought and of responsibility. I've noticed when you mention "responsibility" you're not referring to a person's responsibility to make choices and accept their outcomes, you're referring to the government taking that responsibility and making choices for them. As an adult, if I want to play video games and possibly become violent, if I want to listen to rap music and possibly become violent, if I want to have a lot of unprotected sex with consenting adults and possibly catch super-AIDS, that's my responsibility. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure I do with myself what they demand.

Remember, I'm not arguing because "I lerv derm verder germs!" I'm here because I will not tolerate any affront to free speech. Realize that I will extend this to the Westboro lunatics and the Black Panthers and the Scientologists and any other band of insane fucks; I can disagree with them, I can argue with them and present how they're wrong, but I cannot infringe on their right to say, think, see or hear whatever they want. Because liberty and free speech supercedes anyone's personal offense or irrational fears.

Okay, I'll try this for a third time. I have full understanding of what liberty and freedom of speech actually means. Easy as that. I'm just going to assume you understand that now, considering it's the third time I'm saying it.

Again, I disagree. I am sure that a citizen owning a gun is detremental to society. That is my opnion. I'll just use Japan as an example. The population is about 120 million people. There, it is not allowed for a citizen to own a gun or a sword. They have 12 gun killings each year. That's pretty damn low. In the states, the population is 320 million, and they have 11.000 gun killings. Banning guns is a start to fixing that problem. That is my opnion. That has nothing to do with this discussion however, so let's focus on video games from now on.

There is a major difference between religion and video games. We can't continue this discussion if we don't see eye to eye on that. And no, I havent mentioned the government. I have mentioned our own responsibility as individuals. We have a responsibility over each other.

Everything isn't black and white. We do not live in some utopia, as you clearly believe. In a perfect world, sure, everything should be allowed.

I don't support nazis, rapists and pedophiles. I also do not support their right to front their opinions.

BUT HEY, LET'S GET THIS DISCUSSION BACK ON TRACK. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS, LET'S DO IT ON PM, OR CREATE A THREAD WHERE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

Because while I agree knowledge is better than ignorance, there is probably more real issues that come into play that makes someone willing to gun random people down. And I find focusing on entertainment that does not make the majority crazy and has a rating system worth following is neglecting those possible real issues.

@MikeGosot said:

@Legion_: Why? This is not an attack or anything like that, it's a serious question. Why would "everyone" have a responsability? Why would the government have a responsability? Are you willing to give away the freedom of a parent to choose what his children can buy or not for security? Are you willing to give the government power enough to choose what you can or cannot consume?

To a degree, yes.

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we?

You don't understand what free speech and liberty actually means. As an adult, you have the right to do, say, view, hear, think WHATEVER YOU WANT bar actively injuring another person through your actions. Playing Call of Duty does not injure another person, thus is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

I have full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. I also understand that we're not living in some utopian world. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. I'm not saying that I think COD is the reason for anyone going crazy, but if there ever is conclusive studies that show otherwise, then we have a responsibility to stop that. Take extra notice of the word conclusive.

No, it's clear you don't understand what liberty is. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. What you're suggesting is not that we have responsibility for our actions, but that the government needs to be responsible to make sure we never see the bad video games.

There are conclusive studies that show smoking causes health problems, but if I want to light up a smoke in my own fucking place, the government has no Goddamn right to intervene. What if they showed conclusive evidence that using the internet leads to 'negative psychological behavior' because someone went crazy after using the internet? Guess we need to turn the internet off for the safety of the American people.

I'm not American, but as the world's superpower what America does affects everyone else. And America electing to give up free speech because "we just can't handle it" will make slaves of us all.

Again, I have a full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. You obviously want to believe that we live in a utopia, and that's fine. I choose to belive otherwise, because I'm not a naiv idealist. I understand that every single person has a responsibility. We obviously disagree.

Your comment about smoking has nothing to do with this discussion. There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you. Again, I stress that I do not think that there is a conclusive connection, but if there is, I will own up to that. Why? Because I'll do everything in my power to create a better society.

I don't believe we live in a utopia, and I've said nothing to give this impression. I've said that every person does have responsibility for themselves. Stop strawmanning, and stop the personal attacks.

"There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you". Yes, and playing Call of Duty does not negatively affect those around you, just like owning a gun does not negatively affect those around you. You're attempting to legislate and set up government restrictions on legal acts that could possibly maybe sometimes lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time.

Consider this. There is a direct causal relationship between religious attendance and religious-inspired violence; murder-suicides, application of religious law that violates secular law, etc. This is a direct causality, you can't have 2 (religious-inspired violence) without 1 (religious attendance). Under your suggestion, since we are outlawing legal acts that could lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time, you'd suggest the censorship of religion. That's a direct violation of free speech.

You could bring up cars, there is a direct causal relationship between driving a car and running people over with cars... but the operation of motor vehicles is not a right, it's a privilege. Free speech on the other hands, is a right.

There's not a lot of things I'm militant about, I'm an athiest but I really don't care what religion people follow. I live life pretty clean but I don't care what drugs you use. But the one thing I am militant about is free speech. Because it's the only thing that has given us any of the modern luxury we enjoy. Without free speech, free inquiry, the liberty to do with myself whatever I want we'd all still be slaves working for an undemocratic sovereign. It's only that you've lived with all those benefits that you might fail to realize how crucial the right to free speech was in obtaining any of them.

It's not a personal attack. It's simply stating my opinion as a fact, just as you are doing when you say that I don't understand what liberty and free speech is.

I disagree. I absolutely think that owning a gun has a negative impact on society. I'm all for banning guns. As for video games, we don't know if they ar detremental yet. More research is needed, and that is why I welcome it. I'm not afraid of the results. There is already research that shows violent video games has a impact on your empathy in the long haul, as well as your aggression for a short period of time.

I don't agree at all with what your saying about religion. I'm not a religious man at all, but we all have to agree that there is a major difference in importance between games and religion. As for your other example, I think you're just doing what people are doing with video games. You're finding scapegoats. This disucssion is about video games, and the effect they might have on the development of young people.

Look, I know the importance of free speech, so don't lecture me. And I play a lot of violent video games. What I am saying is that I welcome this research. I'm interested in what they find out. Let's say they find nothing, then the public will get a better understanding of what a video game is, which is good. If they do find conclusive evidence to the contrary, then gaming has a problem.

As of right now, we don't have to be on the defensive. That's what I'm trying to say. Why aren't we welcoming research that will help us better understand the effects of our hobby?

I'm not stating 'my opinion' I'm stating what is clear; you don't understand the difference between actual liberty and state-sanctioned behavior. This isn't even a personal attack, this is just a clear misunderstanding that I'm trying to outline.

If you think that owning a gun has an actively negative impact on society, you just aren't looking at reality. The legal possession of a firearm does not victimize anyone in and of itself. The illegal use of firearms does, that's why there are laws against it. More research is not needed, this is a purely logical argument that you will never find 'social science' around. The possession of a gun does not victimize anyone anymore than the possession of a baseball bat does. Owning a baseball bat is legal, beating my girlfriend to death with a baseball bat however, is illegal. As for my empathy and aggression, my personal emotions are not circumspect to government law. I can feel however I want to feel. If I don't have any empathy for anyone, that's my choice. If I want to involve myself in activities that make me actively upset (Spelunky), that's my choice. You cannot send the government in to intervene in my personal life until I actually victimize someone else, or pose a credible threat. We figured this law out 800 years ago in the Magna Carta. What you suggest is indistinguishable from legislating against thoughtcrime. And I'm not being hyperbolic there; thoughtcrime is behaviors and attitudes the state deems antisocial and makes illegal.

There is not a major difference between the right to play games and the right to attend religion; both are guaranteed under free speech, and the possibility for either to lead to negative repercussions is not an acceptable justification to infringe on them. The ability to read, see, think, and say WHATEVER YOU WANT. You take away that right in one area, you provide no legal precedence to not take it away in any other area. Has nothing to do with scapegoating, it has to do with logic. Just because you say "we all have to agree" is not logic, it's just dogma. Why do we all have to agree, what evidence do you have that the right to believe in whatever religion you want and the right to view any media you want are not guaranteed under free speech?

You don't understand the importance of free speech, clearly. Welcome the research if you want, I don't care if the research says that playing video games leads to leprosy in 3.7% of cases. If it comes out and says video games lead to violence in 100% of all cases, I don't care. But the moment when you say "well then we need to stop it" you advocate the restriction of free thought and of responsibility. I've noticed when you mention "responsibility" you're not referring to a person's responsibility to make choices and accept their outcomes, you're referring to the government taking that responsibility and making choices for them. As an adult, if I want to play video games and possibly become violent, if I want to listen to rap music and possibly become violent, if I want to have a lot of unprotected sex with consenting adults and possibly catch super-AIDS, that's my responsibility. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure I do with myself what they demand.

Remember, I'm not arguing because "I lerv derm verder germs!" I'm here because I will not tolerate any affront to free speech. Realize that I will extend this to the Westboro lunatics and the Black Panthers and the Scientologists and any other band of insane fucks; I can disagree with them, I can argue with them and present how they're wrong, but I cannot infringe on their right to say, think, see or hear whatever they want. Because liberty and free speech supercedes anyone's personal offense or irrational fears.

Okay, I'll try this for a third time. I have full understanding of what liberty and freedom of speech actually means. Easy as that. I'm just going to assume you understand that now, considering it's the third time I'm saying it.

Again, I disagree. I am sure that a citizen owning a gun is detremental to society. That is my opnion. I'll just use Japan as an example. The population is about 120 million people. There, it is not allowed for a citizen to own a gun or a sword. They have 12 gun killings each year. That's pretty damn low. In the states, the population is 320 million, and they have 11.000 gun killings. Banning guns is a start to fixing that problem. That is my opnion. That has nothing to do with this discussion however, so let's focus on video games from now on.

There is a major difference between religion and video games. We can't continue this discussion if we don't see eye to eye on that. And no, I havent mentioned the government. I have mentioned our own responsibility as individuals. We have a responsibility over each other.

Everything isn't black and white. We do not live in some utopia, as you clearly believe. In a perfect world, sure, everything should be allowed.

I don't support nazis, rapists and pedophiles. I also do not support their right to front their opinions.

BUT HEY, LET'S GET THIS DISCUSSION BACK ON TRACK. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS, LET'S DO IT ON PM, OR CREATE A THREAD WHERE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

Legion, seriously. You have shown absolutely no evidence that you understand the core meaning of the First Amendment. You cannot just say you understand because you say you understand it. I'm arguing everything that makes up free speech, you are disagreeing with it on fundamental levels, and then claiming that you understand free speech. This is not logical, evidence-based thinking, this is purely dogmatic, circular argumentation.

Your opinion that a citizen owning a gun victimizes others is your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's factual argument. It's actively, logically wrong. The possession of a firearm in and of itself cannot harm another, it's the illegal use of a firearm that harms others. If we accepted the core notion of "possession of a firearm hurts others" we would live in a tyrannical state where the state's possession of firearms actively victimizes the general population. Logically, it does not, until the state uses them to unlawfully infringe on the people. The same goes for people's right to possess firearms; it does not victimize others until it infringes on the liberty of others (ie; their right to life).

"There is a major difference between religion and video games"

Legion, explain to me in clear, factual basis how the protection of free speech applies differently to one's right to read and believe scripture and their right to watch and play video games. You cannot continue making dogmatic, circular arguments that have no basis in evidence beyond You Saying It and expect that anyone is going to agree with you.

"We do not live in a utopia as you clearly believe. In a perfect world, sure, everything should be allowed."

Well, in a state with free speech and liberty, everything is allowed as far as it actively infringes on the liberty and free speech of others. This is not utopian, this is everything we've designed the Constitution to protect. To protect from people who want to make the country conform to their feelings and beliefs.

"I don't support nazis, rapists, and pedophiles. I also do not support their right to front their opinions."

IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE FREE SPEECH OF PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU DON'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH.

@Legion_: Once again, why? If you state so much that you understand the importance of liberty and free speech, why are you willing to give that away?

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_ said:

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we?

You don't understand what free speech and liberty actually means. As an adult, you have the right to do, say, view, hear, think WHATEVER YOU WANT bar actively injuring another person through your actions. Playing Call of Duty does not injure another person, thus is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

I have full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. I also understand that we're not living in some utopian world. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. I'm not saying that I think COD is the reason for anyone going crazy, but if there ever is conclusive studies that show otherwise, then we have a responsibility to stop that. Take extra notice of the word conclusive.

No, it's clear you don't understand what liberty is. Our actions have consequences, and we have responsibility for those actions. What you're suggesting is not that we have responsibility for our actions, but that the government needs to be responsible to make sure we never see the bad video games.

There are conclusive studies that show smoking causes health problems, but if I want to light up a smoke in my own fucking place, the government has no Goddamn right to intervene. What if they showed conclusive evidence that using the internet leads to 'negative psychological behavior' because someone went crazy after using the internet? Guess we need to turn the internet off for the safety of the American people.

I'm not American, but as the world's superpower what America does affects everyone else. And America electing to give up free speech because "we just can't handle it" will make slaves of us all.

Again, I have a full understanding of what free speech and liberty actually means. You obviously want to believe that we live in a utopia, and that's fine. I choose to belive otherwise, because I'm not a naiv idealist. I understand that every single person has a responsibility. We obviously disagree.

Your comment about smoking has nothing to do with this discussion. There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you. Again, I stress that I do not think that there is a conclusive connection, but if there is, I will own up to that. Why? Because I'll do everything in my power to create a better society.

I don't believe we live in a utopia, and I've said nothing to give this impression. I've said that every person does have responsibility for themselves. Stop strawmanning, and stop the personal attacks.

"There is a difference between your personal well being and the well being of those around you". Yes, and playing Call of Duty does not negatively affect those around you, just like owning a gun does not negatively affect those around you. You're attempting to legislate and set up government restrictions on legal acts that could possibly maybe sometimes lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time.

Consider this. There is a direct causal relationship between religious attendance and religious-inspired violence; murder-suicides, application of religious law that violates secular law, etc. This is a direct causality, you can't have 2 (religious-inspired violence) without 1 (religious attendance). Under your suggestion, since we are outlawing legal acts that could lead to illegal acts 0.1% of the time, you'd suggest the censorship of religion. That's a direct violation of free speech.

You could bring up cars, there is a direct causal relationship between driving a car and running people over with cars... but the operation of motor vehicles is not a right, it's a privilege. Free speech on the other hands, is a right.

There's not a lot of things I'm militant about, I'm an athiest but I really don't care what religion people follow. I live life pretty clean but I don't care what drugs you use. But the one thing I am militant about is free speech. Because it's the only thing that has given us any of the modern luxury we enjoy. Without free speech, free inquiry, the liberty to do with myself whatever I want we'd all still be slaves working for an undemocratic sovereign. It's only that you've lived with all those benefits that you might fail to realize how crucial the right to free speech was in obtaining any of them.

It's not a personal attack. It's simply stating my opinion as a fact, just as you are doing when you say that I don't understand what liberty and free speech is.

I disagree. I absolutely think that owning a gun has a negative impact on society. I'm all for banning guns. As for video games, we don't know if they ar detremental yet. More research is needed, and that is why I welcome it. I'm not afraid of the results. There is already research that shows violent video games has a impact on your empathy in the long haul, as well as your aggression for a short period of time.

I don't agree at all with what your saying about religion. I'm not a religious man at all, but we all have to agree that there is a major difference in importance between games and religion. As for your other example, I think you're just doing what people are doing with video games. You're finding scapegoats. This disucssion is about video games, and the effect they might have on the development of young people.

Look, I know the importance of free speech, so don't lecture me. And I play a lot of violent video games. What I am saying is that I welcome this research. I'm interested in what they find out. Let's say they find nothing, then the public will get a better understanding of what a video game is, which is good. If they do find conclusive evidence to the contrary, then gaming has a problem.

As of right now, we don't have to be on the defensive. That's what I'm trying to say. Why aren't we welcoming research that will help us better understand the effects of our hobby?

I'm not stating 'my opinion' I'm stating what is clear; you don't understand the difference between actual liberty and state-sanctioned behavior. This isn't even a personal attack, this is just a clear misunderstanding that I'm trying to outline.

If you think that owning a gun has an actively negative impact on society, you just aren't looking at reality. The legal possession of a firearm does not victimize anyone in and of itself. The illegal use of firearms does, that's why there are laws against it. More research is not needed, this is a purely logical argument that you will never find 'social science' around. The possession of a gun does not victimize anyone anymore than the possession of a baseball bat does. Owning a baseball bat is legal, beating my girlfriend to death with a baseball bat however, is illegal. As for my empathy and aggression, my personal emotions are not circumspect to government law. I can feel however I want to feel. If I don't have any empathy for anyone, that's my choice. If I want to involve myself in activities that make me actively upset (Spelunky), that's my choice. You cannot send the government in to intervene in my personal life until I actually victimize someone else, or pose a credible threat. We figured this law out 800 years ago in the Magna Carta. What you suggest is indistinguishable from legislating against thoughtcrime. And I'm not being hyperbolic there; thoughtcrime is behaviors and attitudes the state deems antisocial and makes illegal.

There is not a major difference between the right to play games and the right to attend religion; both are guaranteed under free speech, and the possibility for either to lead to negative repercussions is not an acceptable justification to infringe on them. The ability to read, see, think, and say WHATEVER YOU WANT. You take away that right in one area, you provide no legal precedence to not take it away in any other area. Has nothing to do with scapegoating, it has to do with logic. Just because you say "we all have to agree" is not logic, it's just dogma. Why do we all have to agree, what evidence do you have that the right to believe in whatever religion you want and the right to view any media you want are not guaranteed under free speech?

You don't understand the importance of free speech, clearly. Welcome the research if you want, I don't care if the research says that playing video games leads to leprosy in 3.7% of cases. If it comes out and says video games lead to violence in 100% of all cases, I don't care. But the moment when you say "well then we need to stop it" you advocate the restriction of free thought and of responsibility. I've noticed when you mention "responsibility" you're not referring to a person's responsibility to make choices and accept their outcomes, you're referring to the government taking that responsibility and making choices for them. As an adult, if I want to play video games and possibly become violent, if I want to listen to rap music and possibly become violent, if I want to have a lot of unprotected sex with consenting adults and possibly catch super-AIDS, that's my responsibility. It's not the government's responsibility to make sure I do with myself what they demand.

Remember, I'm not arguing because "I lerv derm verder germs!" I'm here because I will not tolerate any affront to free speech. Realize that I will extend this to the Westboro lunatics and the Black Panthers and the Scientologists and any other band of insane fucks; I can disagree with them, I can argue with them and present how they're wrong, but I cannot infringe on their right to say, think, see or hear whatever they want. Because liberty and free speech supercedes anyone's personal offense or irrational fears.

Okay, I'll try this for a third time. I have full understanding of what liberty and freedom of speech actually means. Easy as that. I'm just going to assume you understand that now, considering it's the third time I'm saying it.

Again, I disagree. I am sure that a citizen owning a gun is detremental to society. That is my opnion. I'll just use Japan as an example. The population is about 120 million people. There, it is not allowed for a citizen to own a gun or a sword. They have 12 gun killings each year. That's pretty damn low. In the states, the population is 320 million, and they have 11.000 gun killings. Banning guns is a start to fixing that problem. That is my opnion. That has nothing to do with this discussion however, so let's focus on video games from now on.

There is a major difference between religion and video games. We can't continue this discussion if we don't see eye to eye on that. And no, I havent mentioned the government. I have mentioned our own responsibility as individuals. We have a responsibility over each other.

Everything isn't black and white. We do not live in some utopia, as you clearly believe. In a perfect world, sure, everything should be allowed.

I don't support nazis, rapists and pedophiles. I also do not support their right to front their opinions.

BUT HEY, LET'S GET THIS DISCUSSION BACK ON TRACK. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS, LET'S DO IT ON PM, OR CREATE A THREAD WHERE IT IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

Legion, seriously. You have shown absolutely no evidence that you understand the core meaning of the First Amendment. You cannot just say you understand because you say you understand it. I'm arguing everything that makes up free speech, you are disagreeing with it on fundamental levels, and then claiming that you understand free speech. This is not logical, evidence-based thinking, this is purely dogmatic, circular argumentation.

Your opinion that a citizen owning a gun victimizes others is your opinion, but that doesn't mean it's factual argument. It's actively, logically wrong. The possession of a firearm in and of itself cannot harm another, it's the illegal use of a firearm that harms others. If we accepted the core notion of "possession of a firearm hurts others" we would live in a tyrannical state where the state's possession of firearms actively victimizes the general population. Logically, it does not, until the state uses them to unlawfully infringe on the people. The same goes for people's right to possess firearms; it does not victimize others until it infringes on the liberty of others (ie; their right to life).

"There is a major difference between religion and video games"

Legion, explain to me in clear, factual basis how the protection of free speech applies differently to one's right to read and believe scripture and their right to watch and play video games. You cannot continue making dogmatic, circular arguments that have no basis in evidence beyond You Saying It and expect that anyone is going to agree with you.

"We do not live in a utopia as you clearly believe. In a perfect world, sure, everything should be allowed."

Well, in a state with free speech and liberty, everything is allowed as far as it actively infringes on the liberty and free speech of others. This is not utopian, this is everything we've designed the Constitution to protect. To protect from people who want to make the country conform to their feelings and beliefs.

"I don't support nazis, rapists, and pedophiles. I also do not support their right to front their opinions."

IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE FREE SPEECH OF PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU DON'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH.

Ugh, I won't bother reading, because you obviously don't understand what I'm trying to say.

I understand free speech. Do I support it unconditionally? No, of course not. I don't think anyone should have the right to say that all jews should be killed. I support free speech to the point where it does no infringe on peoples feeling of safety.

@MikeGosot said:

@Legion_: Once again, why? If you state so much that you understand the importance of liberty and free speech, why are you willing to give that away?

I'm not saying I'm willing to give that up. What I am saying, once again, is that we have a responsibility. No, I don't think it's cool for people to say that all jews should be killed. You could argue that it is free speech, but when it infringes on other peoples right to safety, I don't appriciate that.

GODWIN'D

Because if it comes out that there is no link it will barely be reported outside of games journalism. If there is any type of link everyone news show will go mad about killer video games

They don'r care about the truth. They just want an easy scapegoat.

@Legion_ said:

@MikeGosot said:

@Legion_: Once again, why? If you state so much that you understand the importance of liberty and free speech, why are you willing to give that away?

I'm not saying I'm willing to give that up. What I am saying, once again, is that we have a responsibility. No, I don't think it's cool for people to say that all jews should be killed. You could argue that it is free speech, but when it infringes on other peoples right to safety, I don't appriciate that.

To be completely fair, just saying that does not infringe any right. Someone just said something. Big deal. The fact that it offends someone isn't enough reason to take way the right to say whatever you want. The only time government should have to take action is when said individual kills a jew, or plans to kill one. Besides, taking away the right of someone to say "All jews should be killed" does not mean said individual won't kill any jews.

@Legion_: The only condition on free speech and liberty is that it doesn't infringe on the free speech and liberty of others. That's the genius of it. A person actually does have the right to believe or say that the Jews should die, but not the right to actively call for, plan or execute their murder. Hence why Muslims can believe in all the tenets of the Qu'ran, including that the penalty for apostasy is death, but cannot call for, plan or execute the murder of apostates within the US. Just like you have the right to play any violent video game you want, but not force anyone else to play that violent video game, nor commit acts of violence.

A person's "feeling of safety" is not actually a right, it's a privilege. Along with their "feelings of offense". They have the right to free speech, liberty and equal treatment under the law; not the freedom to ban anything that upsets them emotionally. Creating law to appeal to the feelings of others rather than their right to liberty leads to recursive arguments. Part of the right to liberty is tolerating the liberty of others.

@planetfunksquad said:

@Animasta said:

people believe they'd actually ban video games, or violent ones, which is pretty hilarious.

How is that hilarious? Censorship happens all over the world man.

Take a bath, hippy.

@l4wd0g said:

The studies have been done. I have 100 scientific journal articles saying that video games lower empathy (and momentarily raise aggression). Games journalist and gamers just don't want to talk about it. I don't know why.

Long term effects have repeatedly been dismissed as minimal, though - and in the context of other media, that raise in aggression is no more dramatic than that of music, or film - anything that promotes an emotional response.

The reason people don't want to talk about it because it's already been talked to death. It's boring now.

As far as i'm concerned this is just the prez covering all his bases so he can then say "We already looked at media and it's obviously not that, so what the fuck is really causing these people to kill a school full of children?" - and like the OP said, if it really is an issue then it's something that needs to be properly explored.

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_: The only condition on free speech and liberty is that it doesn't infringe on the free speech and liberty of others. That's the genius of it. A person actually does have the right to believe or say that the Jews should die, but not the right to actively call for, plan or execute their murder. Hence why Muslims can believe in all the tenets of the Qu'ran, including that the penalty for apostasy is death, but cannot call for, plan or execute the murder of apostates within the US. Just like you have the right to play any violent video game you want, but not force anyone else to play that violent video game, nor commit acts of violence.

A person's "feeling of safety" is not actually a right, it's a privilege. Along with their "feelings of offense". They have the right to free speech, liberty and equal treatment under the law; not the freedom to ban anything that upsets them emotionally. Creating law to appeal to the feelings of others rather than their right to liberty leads to recursive arguments. Part of the right to liberty is tolerating the liberty of others.

Again I would have to disagree. We obviously live in different worlds. You live in a black and white world, and I do not. I would go as far as calling you a extremist, and I find it hard to discuss with someone who believes their truth is better than others.

I'm pessimistic about the potential for dodgy research, or adequate research that is swiftly misinterpreted. There is a large contingent of people in the world who are almost wilfully ignorant and suspicious as regards all violent media, but video games seem to be the most strongly victimised.

I'm not at all scared that the research will conclusively prove that violent images and games harm children's development, since if they are in fact dangerous, then yeah, we probably should do something about it as soon as possible. That doesn't have to mean ban violent games - it should just mean making it way harder for children to get access to such material, which is ultimately why we have age ratings for games anyway, but stricter enforcement of these rules will probably occur. And I'm an adult, so I'll still be able to find ways to buy, play, and enjoy games. Games aren't going to become some underground counter culture movement, or be seen as some kind of vice indulged in by society's undesirables - no more so than it already arguably is. Sure, it'll be harder for people getting into the industry as there will be a natural contraction, and people will lose their jobs, but if a creditable study shows that games are harmful, then that's a small consideration. It's just that pretty much every creditable study done on the subject suggests possible correlation but not causation between violent acts and violent people, so why should this study be any different? But governments and much of the media seem so desperate and bereft of answers as regards these issues, I worry that media will be used almost as a scapegoat, and will be undeservedly victimised.

I don't necessarily come at this issue from the free speech angle, because in the United Kingdom there is no dispensation in law that upholds freedom of speech above other social considerations, like how it's written into the U.S. constitution. Of course, a free society should allow individuals to pursue their own interests and act at their own will, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But putting stronger restrictions on the sale of violent games doesn't seem to me to be a fundamental attack on the freedom of expression, especially since most violent games tend to be mass market entertainment and not more substantive pieces with - loaded term warning - "artistic validity" (exceptions of course, such as BioShock and Spec Ocs: The Line).

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_: The only condition on free speech and liberty is that it doesn't infringe on the free speech and liberty of others. That's the genius of it. A person actually does have the right to believe or say that the Jews should die, but not the right to actively call for, plan or execute their murder. Hence why Muslims can believe in all the tenets of the Qu'ran, including that the penalty for apostasy is death, but cannot call for, plan or execute the murder of apostates within the US. Just like you have the right to play any violent video game you want, but not force anyone else to play that violent video game, nor commit acts of violence.

A person's "feeling of safety" is not actually a right, it's a privilege. Along with their "feelings of offense". They have the right to free speech, liberty and equal treatment under the law; not the freedom to ban anything that upsets them emotionally. Creating law to appeal to the feelings of others rather than their right to liberty leads to recursive arguments. Part of the right to liberty is tolerating the liberty of others.

Again I would have to disagree. We obviously live in different worlds. You live in a black and white world, and I do not. I would go as far as calling you a extremist, and I find it hard to discuss with someone who believes their truth is better than others.

@Legion_ said:

I'm not saying I'm willing to give that up. What I am saying, once again, is that we have a responsibility. No, I don't think it's cool for people to say that all jews should be killed. You could argue that it is free speech, but when it infringes on other peoples right to safety, I don't appriciate that.

ALL JEWS SHOULD BE KILLED!

Oh Shit... I'm Jewish! Anyway. The First Amendment as it stands is an absolute. When it says, "Congress shall make NO law...", they're not actually secretly saying "hey, we should probably make a few laws." They're just trying to get across that complicated point that they will MAKE NO LAWS limiting speech.

This is one of the fundimental concepts that makes the US so (potentially) great. It's not an accident that it's the first amendment because without it, all the other rights could be limited. There are so many countries in the world where even being accused of speaking ill against their government can get someone disappeared. I can step outside right now and yell, "FUCK OBAMA!" and be 100% assured that I'd remain a free man. (unless I was yelling too loud of course) ;)

So yeah. Hitler was right. Jews cause all wars. Blacks are criminals and Indian people smell bad... and whatever other horrible things people wanna say. Horrible, horrible things. And it makes me proud to be an American.

---

Anyway, about the OP's question. It seems like no one here is too upset about Obama throwing 10 million dollars in the trash just so he can have a sentence in his state of the union address about it. It might not seem that shocking because the Feds waste such an unimaginably huge amount of money, but think about it. And what ten fucking million dollars really is.

It could have build more than a few homes for people now homeless because of natural disasters. It could have been part of cheaper college loans for disadvantaged kids. Instead, it's trash that'll tell the Feds whatever they want to hear. If you're not infuriated, you honestly don't understand.

Being upset about all of this is not a show of cowardice. Personally, I'm angry that it had to come to this. I think that we (humanity) feel better when we can place the blame on the media or malevolent beings, but this does nothing but sweep the real culprit under the rug.

@Legion_: Also, an important thing to notice is that you can't support free speech and think that people can't say certain things. If what you can or cannot say is regulated by the state, then it's not free speech.

You also said that you "find it hard to discuss with someone who believes their truth is better than others", when you refuse to read that person's arguments. Just try to put yourself in our place, try to understand the logic behind our arguments instead of simply dismissing them because you do not agree with them. If you believe that the feeling of safety is more important than free speech, fine, that's your opinion, but i would like to hear a logical argument about that, if you are willing to do that.

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_

@Brodehouse said:

@Legion_: The only condition on free speech and liberty is that it doesn't infringe on the free speech and liberty of others. That's the genius of it. A person actually does have the right to believe or say that the Jews should die, but not the right to actively call for, plan or execute their murder. Hence why Muslims can believe in all the tenets of the Qu'ran, including that the penalty for apostasy is death, but cannot call for, plan or execute the murder of apostates within the US. Just like you have the right to play any violent video game you want, but not force anyone else to play that violent video game, nor commit acts of violence.

A person's "feeling of safety" is not actually a right, it's a privilege. Along with their "feelings of offense". They have the right to free speech, liberty and equal treatment under the law; not the freedom to ban anything that upsets them emotionally. Creating law to appeal to the feelings of others rather than their right to liberty leads to recursive arguments. Part of the right to liberty is tolerating the liberty of others.

Again I would have to disagree. We obviously live in different worlds. You live in a black and white world, and I do not. I would go as far as calling you a extremist, and I find it hard to discuss with someone who believes their truth is better than others.

Extremist? I'm talking about the LAW, Legion, the one that has existed since the Enlightenment. The law that has given you everything that you have, the law that gives you the ability to discuss whatever you want on this Internet. That you have absolutely no appreciation for it is abundantly clear. My 'truth' is facts, logic, and the First Amendment. I don't know what your 'truth' is but I know it has no basis in free speech, due process or equal treatment under the law. The only way you can make 'your truth' legal is by directly dismantling the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Instead of plugging your ears and refusing to give factual arguments based on law, you should actually read up on free speech and everything it entails. Otherwise you're going to live a life of actively disparaging the very laws that give you the ability to hold 'your truth'.

Incorrect. You can't tell me what I think. My truth absolutely has basis in free speech. But again, with free speech comes responsibility. First amendment doesn't bother me all that much, because I'm not an american. I'm norwegian, and here we have free speech. Still, it's not legal to front death treaths, or infringe on a persons right to live in a safe enviroment.

And let's see, last I checked Norway tops every single list of which country it is best to live in. But hey, everyone but you are probably wrong.

Because this is about the eighth time they've wasted tax payers money to research this and every time they don't find a connection. They really want their to be a connection so they can have something to blame.

Every pop culture from the 1950's has been made a scapegoat for societies ill's. video games will be the next and then it will be something else. Think about it, radio program's , tv shows, rock n roll, most pop music trends since the 1950's, movies and videos etc. it's not popular culture that's to blame its the way people behave and how they were raised, or medical conditions (i.e. depression, mental illness)that can cause a lot of these tragedies, but not all. Sometimes people can just be bad or evil inside and have that killer instinct in them, rapist, psychopaths, serial killers, but we as a society must have a scapegoat video games is the next pop culture item that is in the firing line.

@MikeGosot said:

@Legion_: Also, an important thing to notice is that you can't support free speech and think that people can't say certain things. If what you can or cannot say is regulated by the state, then it's not free speech.

You also said that you "find it hard to discuss with someone who believes their truth is better than others", when you refuse to read that person's arguments. Just try to put yourself in our place, try to understand the logic behind our arguments instead of simply dismissing them because you do not agree with them. If you believe that the feeling of safety is more important than free speech, fine, that's your opinion, but i would like to hear a logical argument about that, if you are willing to do that.

I certainly see the logic, and I would maybe agree with you, if I too lived in a black/white world. In Norway, we manage just fine. We have free speech, but we understand the responsibility behind that right.

But this is going nowhere fast. You guys think it's okay for people to utter hateful and rascist messages, and even encourage people to kill others. I don't think that is cool. Honestly, I can't understand how people always defend the amendments. They were written ages ago. One would have to assume that we are more intelligent now, and that we live in a different world.

@wewantsthering said:

Because this is about the eighth time they've wasted tax payers money to research this and every time they don't find a connection. They really want their to be a connection so they can have something to blame.

The anti-tax rhetoric in this conversation is sorely misplaced.

The money that would be allocated to this study has already been accounted for in the budget. It's what the CDC DOES. It researches potential health risks. You're not paying a dime extra for this service than you are already paying (or likely not, considering how few people are in a tax bracket that even pays for such federal programs) Even if it were extra, we're talking about: ~100 million tax returns (so, the 43% of singles and couples who make enough money to actually pay federal taxes) / $10 million for the study.

This costs actual federal tax payers ten cents a year.

@Legion_ said:

I certainly see the logic, and I would maybe agree with you, if I too lived in a black/white world. In Norway, we manage just fine. We have free speech, but we understand the responsibility behind that right.

Then, i think i might have misunderstood you. (Also, why you keep throwing the "black and white world" argument around without any explanation?)

@Legion_ said:

But this is going nowhere fast. You guys think it's okay for people to utter hateful and rascist messages, and even encourage people to kill others. I don't think that is cool. Honestly, I can't understand how people always defend the amendments. They were written ages ago. One would have to assume that we are more intelligent now, and that we live in a different world.

And i see you have misunderstood us. You see, i don't think it's okay to utter rascist and hateful messages. It offends me. But even if i don't agree with these messages, i will always defend the right of people to say them, because well, that's their right. And i never would encourage anyone to kill a person, nobody here said that because the very core of our argument dictates that you cannot infringe other peoples rights, specially the right to live and the right to say whatever you want. You see, you said your country managed to have free speech and understand the responsability behind it. If the people themselves have come to that point, then great. That's amazing. However, if the government starts saying what you or cannot say holding the banner of responsability, then for me, that's wrong.

There is no way to perform a study that they are proposing and achieve accurate or meaningful results.

It's the type of study that is super easy to manipulate your results to support whatever argument you're making.

@MikeGosot: It's important to note that the right to free speech is limited. Speech that incites violence is NOT protected, and CAN be prosecuted. Plus, the free speech thing only applies to government prosecution. Arbiters of conversation are free to limit or censor whatever kinds of speech they want in their medium. Youtube can take down whatever they please, Facebook can ban hate speech, and the ESRB (which is not a government organization) can impose whatever industry standards they want.

I'm mad because its research that's been done before, and it has been proven wrong.

@FriskyHeadCrab said:

@MikeGosot: It's important to note that the right to free speech is limited. Speech that incites violence is NOT protected, and CAN be prosecuted. Plus, the free speech thing only applies to government prosecution. Arbiters of conversation are free to limit or censor whatever kinds of speech they want in their medium. Youtube can take down whatever they please, Facebook can ban hate speech, and the ESRB (which is not a government organization) can impose whatever industry standards they want.

Oh yeah, i know that, and i completely understand that. I got so caught up in defending my point of view that i ended up saying bullshit, my bad. I'm just not fond of government regulating what i can or cannot say, that's all.

@Legion_ said:

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

A start would be to always show ID when buying a 18+ game at local video game retailers, if the person looks younger than the age of...say 25. Beyond that? Get parents to take their responsibility seriously. A 12 year old shouldn't play COD. Same goes for a 13, 14, 15 year old. 16 and up is sort of a gray area, and at that point, it's a lot up to the parents to decide how mature their kid is.

What do you mean "take their responsibility seriously?" Perhaps a parent thinks hard on it and does find their 12 year old child mature enough to play COD. Be careful in generalizing your morals to the whole population.

For those saying the research has been done that is true but the outcomes have been inconsistent. Just as many studies that have said that violent media (games included) leads to violent behavior say that such conclusions can't be drawn as the findings are inconsistent. The main issue is that the research has been relatively small scale with no current longitudinal studies that I know of. The other issue is that the studies have been designed to look specifically at violent media and not other types of media for comparison. Here's a meta-analysis (meaning a research paper that pools several studies together looking at one common topic) that was done in 2001 that suggests that exposure to violent games leads to more aggressive behavior http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/VideoGames1.pdf

I think seeing this correlation does not necessarily mean violent games will never be made nor does it mean the video game industry will have to change dramatically. For example, long before video game research, violent imagery on TV had been correlated with more aggressive behavior yet I would argue that violent imagery on TV shows have only increased with time. These studies are only as strong as the industry that the studies look at is weak. Since the video game industry has been so successful the idea that studies that link aggression to that industry would profoundly effect the nature of that industry is crazy. The video game industry is too strong and too lucrative.

I also think this research is important because it can further help clarify who should have access to certain types of games and who shouldn't. This research furthers the argument that children should not be exposed to violent games unless they have several protective factors around them (whatever those protective factors might be). The research is simply there to provide information. What is done with that information isn't the research's problem.

@FriskyHeadCrab: @MikeGosot: Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio, another Supreme Court decision.

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite,imminent lawless action.

Combined that with the 2011 Supreme Court decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association(video games have the same status as other media, in regards to free speech), it seems highly unlikely that video games will be banned, if anything.

Also, there is a very clear distinction between criminal law and the Constitution, whatever the country is that you're living, be it Norway, the US, or a different country. While the Constitution is a guiding principle in writing the criminal laws, they don't negate them. For example, the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, does not acquit someone from murder / manslaughter. Conversely, the First Amendment does not allow people to espouse hate speech, though each country is free in filling in the details: Norway has - hah! - a more black-and-white approach to it (making all hate speech illegal, no exceptions). The US has the "inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action" clause attached.

Who would've thought, different countries, different laws, huh? That's some good ol' leftist European cultural relativism for ya.

The money could be better spent 
 
I mean I think the people who blame their actions on violent video games probably have some other psychological defect to begin with.

I feel like if theres any negative correlation then we'll have to hear from the Angry Mom Brigade for a while. I would also argue that the study would have to be at least 20 years long to get a good picture of how videogames affect behavior when played during formative years.

@OmegaChosen said:

We shouldn't be on the defensive. The burden of proof is on them, not us. And frankly, they ain't gonna find anything that says clearly that video games cause people to become fatally violent.

You can get proof of almost anything if you hire the right "experts". Hell, a couple of years ago fucking Jack Thompson would have probably been considered an "expert" on video games. What about the "proof" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

If they sell it well enough, they can make the public believe almost anything. I know, I know sounds like a damn conspiracy theory, right? But this stuff happens- and it could happen here. Obama needs something to tell the public, some magical "solution" to appease parents. A partial ban on games or some other freaking ridiculous law ain´t that far fetched, since they seem to be unable to deal with the NRA or the general crime problems in the US.

While I don´t believe anything like that is actually going to come out of this, I find the very notion to have videogames examined by psychologists AGAIN and AGAIN very troubling- And to be honest, more people should be up in arms about this. Because it´s freaking stupid. A colossal waste of time by clueless people who like to waste money.

@s10129107: during which time the entertainment landscape will have shifted drastically, making the findings of the long term study mostly irrelevant to the time period it ends in.

And, totally nitpicking here, it would be a positive correlation if the study found it did effect violence.

It's a waste of tax dollars and researcher's time. I mean it got assigned to the center for disease control. Really. As if there weren't any deadly diseases left and video games were all that's left to study.

@Jerr said:

@Legion_ said:

@Rainbowkisses said:

@Legion_ said:

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

How do you think that would be accomplished?

A start would be to always show ID when buying a 18+ game at local video game retailers, if the person looks younger than the age of...say 25. Beyond that? Get parents to take their responsibility seriously. A 12 year old shouldn't play COD. Same goes for a 13, 14, 15 year old. 16 and up is sort of a gray area, and at that point, it's a lot up to the parents to decide how mature their kid is.

What do you mean "take their responsibility seriously?" Perhaps a parent thinks hard on it and does find their 12 year old child mature enough to play COD. Be careful in generalizing your morals to the whole population.

No 12 year old is old enough to play COD. That is my opinion. In that age, they should be out climbing trees and building treehouses.

@FriskyHeadCrab said:

@wewantsthering said:

Because this is about the eighth time they've wasted tax payers money to research this and every time they don't find a connection. They really want their to be a connection so they can have something to blame.

The anti-tax rhetoric in this conversation is sorely misplaced.

The money that would be allocated to this study has already been accounted for in the budget. It's what the CDC DOES. It researches potential health risks. You're not paying a dime extra for this service than you are already paying (or likely not, considering how few people are in a tax bracket that even pays for such federal programs) Even if it were extra, we're talking about: ~100 million tax returns (so, the 43% of singles and couples who make enough money to actually pay federal taxes) / $10 million for the study.

This costs actual federal tax payers ten cents a year.

I didn't say taxes were going to go up... I said it's a waste of tax money. This money should be allocated to tests that are actually important. Just because it's already in their budget doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for something that's actually important. We've already run this test many times. If the money is already allocated, why don't we have them run a survey to see if Facebook decreases people's concentration at work while we're at it...

@believer258 said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Legion_ said:

What up duders. Patrick posted a article today regarding Obama's instructions to get the CDC to research links between violent video games and violent actions in the real world.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/obama-instructs-cdc-to-research-links-between-violent-media-and-real-life-violence/4521/

A lot of the comments seem to negative regarding the research. I can't understand that. I don't understand why everyone seems to be on the defensive. The way I see his, it is a win-win situation. One of two outcomes are possible,

1. They do the research, and find no relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, games are free to go.

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we? At that point, we would be no better than supporters of guns. They're always trying to find reasons for guns not be illegal, and grasp after straws to make silly arguments. Still, most people who have guns don't kill people with them, but I still think they should be illegal. Obviously, most people who play COD don't kill people, but if it shown to have a negative effect on our youths, and make them potential killers, then I'm all for a solution to that problem.

Of course, now there will come all sorts of subjective comments about how games are unfairly made a target to this or that. But instead of being on the defensive, let's go balls out. Show these people that they can do whatever tests they want, because we don't think games are bad for the development of young people. And if we are proven wrong? So be it, then that's on us, and we'll own up to it.

Don't be cowards!

I agree. Except for the part where you take a stance against guns., the First amendment isn't the right to hunt a deer, its the right to kill a man. People have misconstrued this to mean own guns. But it could just as easily mean knifes, or poison. It is the right to fight back, to defend your self.

Do you mean the second amendment? Because the first is a right to freedom of speech...

@Brodehouse: Just for fun, let's say that, theoretically, it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by several reputable organizations that a certain level of violence in video games would cause a very large percentage of people to desire a shooting spree. It doesn't - any dolt could see that, or so I wish - but if it did, would you still be all for not restricting violence in games?

As for my own comment, I don't especially like the notion that the accusations of the NRA and others were given credibility. However, the people who will actually come to a conclusion on this issue - the Vice President himself, for instance - did not seem overly reactionary or up in arms about anything at all, something which makes me think that he is at least willing to listen to both sides of this argument if only for the sake of the millions of jobs and billions of dollars this industry has.

I think we'll be fine.

On the subject of whether games actually make people more aggressive and decreases empathy - all right. But I seriously doubt that they do so anymore than, say, rugby or American football or an action movie or whatever else you can think of that requires aggressive action.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go off to a Medieval Literature class and read about Beowulf ripping off the arm of Grendel.

Yes, second amendment sorry, I misspoke. Honestly I am a lot less worried about this then the supreme court hearing about banning violent video games. Perhaps this will give credibility to video games a medium.

@Legion_ said:

@Dagbiker said:

@Legion_ said:

What up duders. Patrick posted a article today regarding Obama's instructions to get the CDC to research links between violent video games and violent actions in the real world.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/obama-instructs-cdc-to-research-links-between-violent-media-and-real-life-violence/4521/

A lot of the comments seem to negative regarding the research. I can't understand that. I don't understand why everyone seems to be on the defensive. The way I see his, it is a win-win situation. One of two outcomes are possible,

1. They do the research, and find no relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, games are free to go.

2. They do the research, and find a relevant connection between violent video games and a negative effect on the minds of young people. If this is the case, we'll be able to better understand why, and we would have to take action to ensure that games don't fall in the wrong hands.

If it's the second one, then so be it. We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we? At that point, we would be no better than supporters of guns. They're always trying to find reasons for guns not be illegal, and grasp after straws to make silly arguments. Still, most people who have guns don't kill people with them, but I still think they should be illegal. Obviously, most people who play COD don't kill people, but if it shown to have a negative effect on our youths, and make them potential killers, then I'm all for a solution to that problem.

Of course, now there will come all sorts of subjective comments about how games are unfairly made a target to this or that. But instead of being on the defensive, let's go balls out. Show these people that they can do whatever tests they want, because we don't think games are bad for the development of young people. And if we are proven wrong? So be it, then that's on us, and we'll own up to it.

Don't be cowards!

I agree. Except for the part where you take a stance against guns., the First amendment isn't the right to hunt a deer, its the right to kill a man. People have misconstrued this to mean own guns. But it could just as easily mean knifes, or poison. It is the right to fight back, to defend your self.

It's the second amendment. And it clearly states that the purpose is to at all times have a well armed milita, because they were scared shitless that the brits would return. Between the army and the police force, I would say the states have a pretty good militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

@Legion_said:

We're not going to defend our hobby to the point where people have to die for our right to play COD, are we?

This research could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that every shooting from Columbine to Sandy Hook could've been prevented if it weren't for the presence of violent video games and I would still defend their right to exist and not be ghettoized away with porn and drugs. Line up every school shooter in the past two decades (or hell, mass shooters in general) and they would be completely dwarfed by the 10(ish) million people who bought COD: Black Ops 2 to no ill effect whatsoever. That is Black Ops 2 by itself, what if I added in the entire COD franchise? Grand Theft Auto? Mortal Kombat? Doom? These tens of millions of people do not deserve to have their hobby taken from them or otherwise expressively crippled because of a group of people you could count on two hands.

@Legion_ said:

@Hunter5024 said:

I'm 21 and got carded for Assassins Creed III, despite having facial hair at the time, and I'm not even a young looking guy. So they kind of already do that. Also I think if a parent thinks their 14 year old is mature enough to play COD then that's totally fine, the government shouldn't tell them that's not okay.

By that logic, I guess you think it's okay for a 14 year old to drink alcohol as well?

What a ridiculous comparison. Video games are just like books, movies, music and television: a medium consumed externally by the consumer. They are not mind altering drugs with a consistent effect on the user's mental capabilities. Parents can decide if their child or teenager is smart enough to differentiate fantasy violence from the real world, they cannot decide if their children will become drunk or not.

@Superfriend said:

@OmegaChosen said:

While I don´t believe anything like that is actually going to come out of this, I find the very notion to have videogames examined by psychologists AGAIN and AGAIN very troubling- And to be honest, more people should be up in arms about this. Because it´s freaking stupid. A colossal waste of time by clueless people who like to waste money.

If "videogames" were an actual person, they would've pointed out how they have been put into double, triple of maybe even quadruple jeopardy. I thought we were done with this after the Supreme Court ruling, but now we're back to square one. If enough people are hellbent on proving that society's problems stem from violence in videogames, then I don't know what can be done. They'll keep banging the drum and fighting the fight every time a tragedy happens until they eventually get their collar.

@ShatterShock: Actually, research has shown that violent video games have a impact on your empathy as well as your aggression. So it is absolutely mind altering. And you bring in violent books, movies and TV shows as well. And you know what? If I had a kid, I sure as hell wouldn't allow him or her to watch The Fly or Dexter or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or fucking Rambo.

I don't really care, I know that video games do not make me violent. Now if it ends up that other people like me get violent then so be it. Ban their games that is perfectly fine with me. I on the other hand am not effected by it, but I do not think they will find anything at all.

@Gaff said:

@FriskyHeadCrab: @MikeGosot: Case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio, another Supreme Court decision.

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite,imminent lawless action.

Combined that with the 2011 Supreme Court decision in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association(video games have the same status as other media, in regards to free speech), it seems highly unlikely that video games will be banned, if anything.

Also, there is a very clear distinction between criminal law and the Constitution, whatever the country is that you're living, be it Norway, the US, or a different country. While the Constitution is a guiding principle in writing the criminal laws, they don't negate them. For example, the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, does not acquit someone from murder / manslaughter. Conversely, the First Amendment does not allow people to espouse hate speech, though each country is free in filling in the details: Norway has - hah! - a more black-and-white approach to it (making all hate speech illegal, no exceptions). The US has the "inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action" clause attached.

Who would've thought, different countries, different laws, huh? That's some good ol' leftist European cultural relativism for ya.

To be fair, i wasn't aware of many of the exceptions of the First Ammendment because... I'm not american. There are certainly cases i don't agree with the exceptions, and looking at what originated those exceptions is really interesting.