Newtown 7th Grader Starts Movement To Rid America Of Violent Video Games - Polidicks

Everyone blaming the elementary school shooting on everything but the murderer.

[quote]predatory mammals take "joy in the hunt" because they have reward centers which gives them a reward for finding food, a necessary part of being an animal. a dog or a cat understands eating food as a positive thing, thus it learns behavior accordingly. [/quote] Not a learned behavior. Cats kill for the hell of it with nobody instructing them how. I have a cat whose mother died shortly after birth. The litter box? Learned. Hunting? Very much not learned. He kills anything and everything that he can get his paws on. About two thirds of the time he leaves the corpse intact. [quote]there's no "predator portion" of the brain. idk which anatomy class youve taken.[/quote] I am aware of that. Referring to it as a defined center is much easier than dealing with it as the nebulous system of multiple portions of the brain operating in tandem and making the act of hunting enjoyable. Sorry, when dealing with a biological super computer that humanity only half way even understands, it is sometimes easier to simplify it for the sake of discussion. [quote]the reason why we enjoy games or are amused by them is because they reward us when we do something, in the case of a violent videogame it's because we are violent that the game reward us. violent videogames aren't different in any way to non-violent videogames when it comes to reward and the drive to play.[/quote] I agree absolutely that the reward conditions play a significant role in good game development, however if all you have are rewards, and the people don't enjoy the tasks necessary to obtain the rewards, you aren't going to have a complete game. For something like call of duty, which will reward you in multiplayer for certain actions, you would be suggesting that people only do it for the rewards, and not for the thrill of the game itself. The simulated combat is enjoyable. [quote]the fear comes from the conception that videogames reinforce violent behavior by conditioning people to associate killing someone with a positive or rewarding thing, but i dont agree with that because killing a person in a game is 100% different in every way from killing a real person, and only mentally ill or people without the ability to understand the difference could confuse the two[/quote] I'm not sure that is really the direction that crowd approaches it from, though it is an interesting angle. [quote]yeah you cant fight chemistry, which is why its a good thing that this has 0 to do with chemistry :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Everything is chemistry, bud, especially anything pertaining to the brain. [QUOTE=thisispain;38931718]k gunfox, i know you are trying your best, but please stop destroying psychology and neuroscience with posts like these.[/quote] I could claim the sky was blue and you would accuse me of ruining physics, it is really pretty childish.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States]November 2, 1853: Louisville, Kentucky A student, Matthew Ward, bought a self-cocking pistol in the morning, went to school and killed schoolmaster Mr. Butler for excessively punishing his brother the day before. Even though he shot the schoolmaster point blank in front of his classmates, he was acquitted.[/URL] Video games did this to our children.

There are a lot of biotruths happening in this thread right now

[QUOTE=thisispain;38931718] yeah you cant fight chemistry, which is why its a good thing that this has 0 to do with chemistry :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Our entire brain functions off of nothing BUT chemistry. Pretty much everything else does, too.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38931835]Not a learned behavior. Cats kill for the hell of it with nobody instructing them how. I have a cat whose mother died shortly after birth. The litter box? Learned. Hunting? Very much not learned. He kills anything and everything that he can get his paws on. About two thirds of the time he leaves the corpse intact. [/QUOTE] uh so? cats are obligate carnivores. even if they are fed well by humans they still derive pleasure from getting a food source because it's an achievement. cats don't kill for fun, they don't even have such a concept it is a learnt behavior even if you dont understand what a learnt behavior is, the cat learns from an early age to associate the achievement of hunting with the receiving of food, powered by its hunting instincts. and idk what you are doing comparing humans to cats and dogs, there's really no need to start pulling at obscure animal behaviors when we know exactly why humans like videogames, regardless of if they are violent or not [QUOTE=GunFox;38931835]I am aware of that. Referring to it as a defined center is much easier than dealing with it as the nebulous system of multiple portions of the brain operating in tandem and making the act of hunting enjoyable. Sorry, when dealing with a biological super computer that humanity only half way even understands, it is sometimes easier to simplify it for the sake of discussion. [/QUOTE] you didn't simplify anything, you just made up some shit??? [QUOTE=GunFox;38931835]I agree absolutely that the reward conditions play a significant role in good game development, however if all you have are rewards, and the people don't enjoy the tasks necessary to obtain the rewards, you aren't going to have a complete game.[/QUOTE] thats not true at all. see facebook games and youll see that people care less about the task and more about the reward. [QUOTE=GunFox;38931835]For something like call of duty, which will reward you in multiplayer for certain actions, you would be suggesting that people only do it for the rewards, and not for the thrill of the game itself. The simulated combat is enjoyable.[/QUOTE] if you recreated call of duty's simulated combat but gave it no rewards no-one would play it. you are very quick to grab onto animals but when it comes to other things suddenly you arent so keen to minimalise human behavior. if we are as close to the cats and dogs as you want to claim, then you're completely wrong. we enjoy the rewards that come from killing digital people, not the "simulated combat", young kids don't understand combat in any way yet still derive enjoyment from playing violent videogames. to understand why games are violent in the first place you'd have to look towards game design and how it evolved along popular culture, to start talking about cats and dogs is just a crass cop-out of a simplification. and if you think the only part of the game that rewards you is multiplayer then you dont really understand game design either. [QUOTE=GunFox;38931835]Everything is chemistry, bud, especially anything pertaining to the brain.[/QUOTE] no its quite in the realm of psychology. chemistry is a physical science, we're talking about behaviorism... bud [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;38931889]Our entire brain functions off of nothing BUT chemistry.[/QUOTE] idk what the point of saying this is how our brain functions has about 0 to do with chemistry as a science if you want to explain classical conditioning using chemistry be my guest but you wont get anywhere

[QUOTE=Katatonic717;38930922]I mean I feel for the kid but... [QUOTE]“All of it is kill, just kill as many people as you can without dying,” [/QUOTE] No, just no.[/QUOTE] Well, not all of it. Nearly all of the most successful games class as what I would call room clearing simulators. Aside from the plot tie in, the gameplay consists of tactically (or non-tactically) entering rooms full of arbitrarily labeled enemies in a manner effective enough to result in the fatality of all of them. I admired the SWAT series because it actually employed realistic ROE for an officer entering that situation. I wouldn't call them murder simulators, because they are rarely ever personal enough to be called murder. Games that employ more complex roleplay elements, such as the presence of civilians and law enforcement tasked with protecting them breach this category through the emphasis on the penalty or consequence on death rather than simply the most effective bullet placement. I feel as if his goals are misguided, but I wouldn't disagree with the fact that nearly every record breaking game falls into this category, and that there is something a little worrying about it. I've played many games of artistic creation with great 'literary' value, but rarely are those the ones that I can openly discuss without explaining nearly every aspect of them and getting bogged down in that it isn't 'just a shooter'.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38931835] I could claim the sky was blue and you would accuse me of ruining physics, it is really pretty childish.[/QUOTE] yeah i mean its so obvious thats whats going on, idk whats wrong with me for not seeing it your way

I would say that the problem isn't the violence in games, but our fixation on an incredibly specific type of gaming. We want to be the efficient killer, and never helpless. Games that breach this are touted for their brilliance and intensity when really it is simply a literary aspect that is absent in popular media.

or instead of banning violent video games you could actually enforce the rules on them instead of giving them to 12 year olds? I know it's hypocritical because I can be sure almost all of us played postal 2 before we thought girls weren't icky and sticky , but if people want to make a difference, don't ban games, actually enforce the age restrictions.

[QUOTE=Keyblockor;38930972]Jesus fucking christ how goddamn stupid can you be, it's like getting stung by a hornet and then going to a hornet's nest and dousing it in water then lighting the nest on fire.[/QUOTE] Could you please explain how it is like that at all? [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ewitwins;38931358]Maybe if you'd get off your high horse and think about how you would evaluate the situation if you were in his shoes if you were his age, but you probably are so who knows. How would you suggest someone approach him to prevent him from wasting his time?[/QUOTE] I doubt people who make these arguments are capable of that. The lack of empathy is astounding, but it comes from the fact that he probably can't even comprehend that this same kid witnessed people dying. It's like the post I quoted above where he compared a child having his class shot to death to being stung by a hornet. They simply don't understand the idea that someone's experience can be different from theirs, so their answer is that the person who's come to different conclusions is stupid or deluded. It's a bit concerning to me as someone who studies psychology, because it demonstrates a lack of what one would expect a three or four year old to have at least partially developed when they've realized the concept of 'other minds'.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;38931982]Could you please explain how it is like that at all? [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] I doubt people who make these arguments are capable of that. The lack of empathy is astounding, but it comes from the fact that he probably can't even comprehend that this same kid witnessed people dying. It's like the post I quoted above where he compared a child having his class shot to death to being stung by a hornet. They simply don't understand the idea that someone's experience can be different from theirs, so their answer is that the person who's come to different conclusions is stupid or deluded. It's a bit concerning to me as someone who studies psychology, because it demonstrates a lack of what one would expect a three or four year old to have at least partially developed when they've realized the concept of [url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/]'other minds'.[/url][/QUOTE] The fact is that the kid is wrong, getting rid of violent video games won't do anything whatsoever and someone should have told him that.

[img]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-no-trendline.jpg[/img] Of course it's the video games

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38932014]The fact is that the kid is wrong, getting rid of violent video games won't do anything whatsoever and someone should have told him that.[/QUOTE] How do you propose that one tells a child he is wrong about something he's come to believe after being what he's been through? "You're stupid for thinking that. It isn't true." "It'll never change. You shouldn't try." "You're just wrong." "Don't bother because you don't understand it." Which of these sounds best to tell to a kid who's been through the unimaginable? Someone who's had every illusion of safety that we often live into middle age with shattered by some random gunman who killed people he undoubtedly knew in an arbitrary manner? You can encourage him to research it. Hopefully he'll come to less simple conclusions, but the problem is that his parents too quickly agreed and decided to announce it to the world. Rather than fostering a pursuit of knowledge on the subject they chose to thrust him out into the spotlight with nothing but basic conviction to go on. That's at the fault of the parents, not the child.

[QUOTE=Rika-chan;38931237]Yo dawg come chill with us cool kids[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nocussing.com/aboutncc/thenocussingchallenge.html[/url] are you fucking serious this has to be a joke

At least this time a movement like this is actually being started by a kid who likely doesn't understand reality enough to apply reason to it yet. I'm sure he went through terrible things but that doesn't make this argument valid.

[QUOTE=ionuttzu;38932019][IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-no-trendline.jpg[/IMG] Of course it's the video games[/QUOTE] I'm from Canada and I believe we play almost the same amount of video games as U.S, per capita of population, in fact almost every nation on there is probably the same but look at the differences.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;38931062]I just had a thought, we should be promoting this like fuck and spreading it around, trying to convince gullible parents to force their kids to bin their violent games. These kids shouldn't be playing these games anyways, so there's that, plus, just imagine: playing a multiplayer game on the 360 with not a single underage gamer seen or heard. Less racial slurs, less profanity, less squeaky prepubescent yelling...truly it would be heaven on earth.[/QUOTE] This is objective but if there were no kids breaking the age rating the developers would have a harder time pleasing the consumer. I think it would lead to some more originality and possibly better quality games. I would like to see some big budget games taking risks on things that previously only Indie developers do. Sadly parents will never enforce these ratings.

[QUOTE=power-mad;38931407][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Lw7xa6lHU[/media] [/QUOTE] Damn, any more of that and Penn probably would have become a mass murderer himself. Between the lack of knowledge on the subjects, cheap debate tactics ("so you're saying that now teachers should carry guns?" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum[/url]), and obvious crowd whoring among those women, that was almost a challenge to watch all the way through.

[QUOTE=FreakyMe;38932039]How do you propose that one tells a child he is wrong about something he's come to believe after being what he's been through? "You're stupid for thinking that. It isn't true." "It'll never change. You shouldn't try." "You're just wrong." "Don't bother because you don't understand it." Which of these sounds best to tell to a kid who's been through the unimaginable? Someone who's had every illusion of safety that we often live into middle age with shattered by some random gunman who killed people he undoubtedly knew in an arbitrary manner? You can encourage him to research it. Hopefully he'll come to less simple conclusions, but the problem is that his parents too quickly agreed and decided to announce it to the world. Rather than fostering a pursuit of knowledge on the subject they chose to thrust him out into the spotlight with nothing but basic conviction to go on. That's at the fault of the parents, not the child.[/QUOTE] I chose an option that you never offered: "You don't understand the issue, so I'll explain it," Then proceed to show him the evidence that shows that these things happen due to mental instability and not violent video games. Job done.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38932152]I chose an option that you never offered: "You don't understand the issue, so I'll explain it," Then proceed to show him the evidence that shows that these things happen due to mental instability and not violent video games. Job done.[/QUOTE] everyone likes to think that they believe what they believe because they are rational and logical human-beings

[QUOTE=The-Spy;38932116]I'm from Canada and I believe we play almost the same amount of video games as U.S, per capita of population, in fact almost every nation on there is probably the same but look at the differences.[/QUOTE] It's because it's an uninformative and in all likelihood misleading graph which doesn't even explain it's x value. How does one measure 'Video game spending per capita' and how was it measured? How do the differences in economic climate and the availability of gaming technology in each country affect the scale of these measurements? Can video game spending really be directly tied to the level of video game consumption? These are all things you should ask when looking at a poorly labeled and conveyed graph such as this. [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;38932152]I chose an option that you never offered: "You don't understand the issue, so I'll explain it," Then proceed to show him the evidence that shows that these things happen due to mental instability and not violent video games. Job done.[/QUOTE] Having a bit of a shit day, apologies for the crassness. I suppose I mistook you for one of the users who were directly insulting the child's intelligence or capability based on his conclusion.

Where i live there are no age restrictions at all(there are,but they are rarely enforced,such things are considered idiocy in our culture)

Yup, the kid is totally right. It's not mental instability at all, it's video games. That's why I'm gonna go out and shoot a bunch of people.

I wish people would stop doing this. Video games and guns aren't the problem.

i don't even agree with age restriction, i just think that parents shouldn't be blaming violent video games for violent behaviour when they're the ones that are able to control what their kids do. of course age restriction is inaccurate, its not like the moment you turn 15 or 18 you just click and become more sensible and mature all of a sudden, but its really the best we have. the rating should be enough for a parent to guage the level of violence in a game. if a parent thinks their 13 year old son is sensible enough to be exposed to an MA15 game, then thats fine in my eyes, but the parent should really be aware of what they're doing. 10 year olds should not be playing COD on xbox live.

I hope this loser kid gets made fun of at school by a horde of angry nerdy kids.

[QUOTE=Kuro.;38931062]I just had a thought, we should be promoting this like fuck and spreading it around, trying to convince gullible parents to force their kids to bin their violent games. These kids shouldn't be playing these games anyways, so there's that, plus, just imagine: playing a multiplayer game on the 360 with not a single underage gamer seen or heard. Less racial slurs, less profanity, less squeaky prepubescent yelling...truly it would be heaven on earth.[/QUOTE] The most I've heard is people that sound 16 and older swearing and screaming nigger every 5 seconds so I doubt much would change.

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38931570]my god penn got really fucking pissed off at them for interrupting him and just talked straight through that cunt like a train. seriously they interrupted him at least 30 times and he took it like a gentleman. then he calmly but assertively made his point by talking over the blabbermouths. plus they're using these backwards assed remarks like "OH SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT NOW TEACHERS SHOULD CARRY GUNS" subject flipping bullshit. i bet penn is a real bro.[/QUOTE] i like penn, i try to see past his libertarianism

[QUOTE=Y'all.;38932473]i don't even agree with age restriction, i just think that parents shouldn't be blaming violent video games for violent behaviour when they're the ones that are able to control what their kids do. of course age restriction is inaccurate, its not like the moment you turn 15 or 18 you just click and become more sensible and mature all of a sudden, but its really the best we have. the rating should be enough for a parent to guage the level of violence in a game. if a parent thinks their 13 year old son is sensible enough to be exposed to an MA15 game, then thats fine in my eyes, but the parent should really be aware of what they're doing. 10 year olds should not be playing COD on xbox live.[/QUOTE] I've been playing games well above my age ever since I was 10 and I haven't been out on shooting sprees or lit my house on fire or whatever. I do agree that 10 y olds or anyone below 15 should be playing CoD or any other online game, because they are annoying as fuck. No, no buts. They are as annoying as mosquitos and capable of making my teeth hurt with their screaming. Either be fucking mature and stop acting like a fucking kid, or gtfo of any online game.