are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow

[Relambrien]

Well, let me attempt to delve into the thought process of the type of person I'm describing.

Situation: "We have this situation that's pretty bad right now. Here's what you can do to help."
Person: "Hmm, if things are this bad, then I should help out. I guess I'll do all this; if it helps, then I'll go for it." The person then goes and does what is recommended.

Later...

Situation: "Thanks to the efforts of the people, the situation's improving. Keep up the good work, everyone."
Person: "Oh good, it isn't as bad anymore. That means I don't have to work as hard, since the situation is better than it was. Now I don't have to worry about making sure I do what I can to help with the situation, since it's not as bad anymore. I'll probably help enough with just my daily activities." The person reverts to their activities before the problem arose.

As a result, the situation worsens once again as not enough is being done to improve it. The less of a problem there is, the less-inclined a person is to do something about the problem, regardless of the reason the problem isn't as bad as it was.

[devonin]

"Thanks to the efforts of the people, the situation is improving. As long as people continue to put forward this effort, the situation will continue to improve. Keep up the good work. Your actions are making a difference."

Seems okay to me.

[Relambrien]

And yet, few will actually follow that directive. Since the situation isn't as bad as it was, there is no longer an "urgent" feeling; helping out seems far less necessary and therefore less people will do so.

[devonin]

But can you not argue that if the situation isn't as bad as it was, that people -ought- to notbe made to continue to put the same effort into it? Everyone will make a decision. They'll see how the situation has changed, and if that is good enough for them, they can revert back to their old behaviors, but I suspect most people will learn -something- from the original effort, so even if they went far overboard when it was a major crisis, some of the precautions will stick with them as sensible, thus making them more cautious in general.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by devonin

But can you not argue that if the situation isn't as bad as it was, that people -ought- to notbe made to continue to put the same effort into it? Everyone will make a decision. They'll see how the situation has changed, and if that is good enough for them, they can revert back to their old behaviors, but I suspect most people will learn -something- from the original effort, so even if they went far overboard when it was a major crisis, some of the precautions will stick with them as sensible, thus making them more cautious in general.

I can understand this. Allow me to further explain my thoughts with math.

Imagine, if you will, two graphs, one labeled "Population cautiousness vs time" and one labeled "Situation severity vs time." Each would follow an oscillating sine curve, with the former graph's crest at the latter graph's trough. As time passes, each curve would oscillate to the sinusoidal axis.

Here's a rough pictographic representation, though my graph-drawing skills are exceedingly limited. It should be enough to get the point across though.



The situation levels out over time as people become used to its occurrence and act accordingly, and, as you state, a few continue to be cautious each cycle. Of course, this is assuming little or no outside influence, and other events can drastically affect what I'm discussing, but you get the idea.

[Tokzic]

I find it hilarious how long this topic has been bouncing to the top of CT when there has been barely any word against the OP, and the only discussion has been about related topics that really deserve their own threads.

Admin Edit: Stay on topic.

[devonin]

CT is fun like that. The discussion can evolve and change as the pages go by. That isn't really a huge issue. When there's a big jump in topic all at once, there should usually be a new thread about it. If there's another jump, or this new topic gets really in depth, I'll split off some new threads.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

I find it hilarious how long this topic has been bouncing to the top of CT when there has been barely any word against the OP, and the only discussion has been about related topics that really deserve their own threads.

You may recognize rule 25: Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post.

That said, I don't really care whether the debate is on-topic, I just like debating. So as long as there's something I'm interested in to debate about, I'm happy.

[Cheesy74]

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/...ensorship.html

That is all.

However, if you can give me any evidence that actual, physical violence is inspired by violent games, as opposed to thoughts of violence, let me know. Because that Department of Justice graph is making a strong case to the contrary. (I know, coincidence, cause, I'll use the same arguments David Wong did.)

[E-x-Treme]

This is an interesting subject that has been on my mind a lot lately. I really believe the decision is up to the disgression of the parents. If a kid is mature enough to be able to watch people getting bloodied up/shot/grotesquely injured/etc. and realize that their is a difference between seeing it on screen and doing it in real life, they're probably mature enough to play an M-rated game. However, if parents think their kids are young, innocent, and probably not sensible enough to realize the difference, they aren't ready for violent games.

[XCraigeX]

I feel it depends on the maturity level of the child. For example, one such as myself - who i consider most mature for my age (better be o_o) - would not be as idiotic as to think that smashing a woman's head in with a baseball bat would be funny. However, some children may think this.

Not all of them are like that for no reason though. It could be due to a bad childhood experience - e.g. my dad hits my mum so maybe its ok if i hit that woman across the road like in the game.

Or possibily the violent games could have a more meaningful effect on children with slight or severe mental issues. For example - i remember reading an article about a child of 15 or so who could no longer distinguish reality from illusion and thought he himself was in the game known as "San Andreas". He did some horrific things before being taken to a mental clinic where i hope he is getting the help he needs. This goes to show that perhaps the violence in the games could trigger a mental illness which then causes the child to act violently or irrationally.

[devonin]

For example, one such as myself - who i consider most mature for my age

The point you seem to miss is that the vast VAST majority of kids between the ages of 10 and 17 think they are very mature for their age, especially when they want something they aren't allowed to have because of their age.

[XCraigeX]

perhaps, but i suggest you re - read my point. It dosen't matter what they intitially think - i was just stating that a mature child would not consider vulgar things such as decapitating someone humane.

[D.J. Cristo]

A) You mean the youth of TODAY.

B) Perhaps, in a few instances, video games have been the cause of a portion of violent behavior in children, but this issue is being blown way out of proportion. What REALLY needs to be taken into account as factors of violence in children are the families they grow up with and the environment which surrounds them. Of course, some people are just plain psychotic too. Video games, however, cannot be used as a scapegoat for ALL violent behavior in children. I'm sick of seeing it being done. Everything that is wrong with a child is not caused by god-damned video games.

[Satan.]

Yes. Video games are poisoning the youth of America. That's why I created them (50 Cent: Bullet Proof, Resident Evil, Teletubbies etc etc). I'm responsible for this. What's going to happen to me?

Mod Edit: You're going to never post in CT again, that's what.

[dood gone krazee]

I'd have to say that video games today are difinetly ruining todays youth. Video games are fine, but only certain ones. Kids ages 8 through 13 should definitly NOT be playing games like Grand Theft Auto, or Medal of Honor. These games have way too much violence, and it's teaching kids too much about it. Same with Gears of War, I've played it a few times, and I KNOW that some 7 year olds even play this game. Now if I were this kid's parent, I would'nt want him playing a game where you can easily blow some guys head off with a gun, see blood and guts and such splatter everywhere, then go up to the dead body on the ground, kick it, and make more guts explode from the corpse!

But then, what if video games like this, weren't even invented? Kids would be out in the streets alot more, probably doing the crimes, instead of just being able to do it on a computer screen.

So at the same time, video games are very bad for todays youth, but also, it has a good side. Keeping the kids from doing the crimes in the real world, and doing it virtually.

[devonin]

It is fallacious to argue that a game explicitly intended for those over 18 is inappropriate for those under 18, and use that as a basis to say that video games are "a bad influence" If you're talking about teens, you shouldn't be looking at anything rated over T for Teen. If you're looking at children, E for Everyone should be the only valid category to judge.

Inappropriately accessed video games are a bad influence on children, sure, but that doesn't make Rated M games bad or wrong or even morally ambiguous, there just needs to be appropriate enforcement of the age restrictions.

I mean, I'd argue that free access to hard liquor is a bad influence on 8 year olds, but since it is legally only for those over (depending on country) 16, 18, 21, if there are 8 year olds getting access to hard liquor, that doesn't speak to booze being -bad- it speaks to insufficient controls on access.

[Sullyman2007]

I see where your comming from, Devonin, but shouldn't you be able to infer what thats doing to a childs mind? When an 11 year old kid sits down at his T.V, switches on his 360 and starts decapitating people with chainsaws, shouldn't that constitute as being, "a bad influence"? I'm not trying to sound biased, but that should be common sense.

Also, I do believe that parents should have more of an insight on what their kids are doing. I think that most kids get away with playing these games because the parents really dont know what their playing. Its a parents responsibility to moniter what his/her child plays, and for that matter, what their child watches on T.V, websites they visit, etc.

[Chrissi]

I am noticing a theme in this thread.

"If the parents raised the children well, the children won't be messed up."

"People are responsible for their own actions. Everyone can make good decisions."

I would like to cite the example of Phineas Gage. Phineas Gage is a guy who lived about 150 years ago. He was a typical hardworking, responsible, kind railroad construction worker who was well-thought of by everyone he knew. He had a high status at work and a good social life.

However, he was involved in a freak accident at work where an iron rod blew through his head, probably destroying most of his prefrontal cortex. He recovered and was perfectly normal, able to go about his life unimpaired except for one thing - he was no longer the same person. He wasn't kind, well-mannered, responsible, and well-loved anymore. He had become an extremely irresponsible, bitter person, who was prone to losing his temper.

He made lots of bad decisions. He couldn't work anymore. He cursed a lot, when he never did before. He was violent, whereas before he was quite docile. It basically destroyed his life, his personality, and his ability to make reasonable, responsible, and rational decisions.

This case is often cited in psychology, and should really be causing many of you to question what causes people to behave in stupid ways. I know lots of people who were raised by bad parents and turned out to be excellent people. Then again, there are those whose parents practically killed themselves over trying to resolve their problem child, and the kid is still terrible.

I'm not saying it's entirely within the brain. I'm saying you can't blame either environment or mental capacity. I think they both work together. Everybody's brain is kind of different from everyone else's, and these variations can sometimes make for an aggressive or a docile person, a responsible or an irresponsible one.

But who's to blame? The person? Think about Phineas Gage. Is he to blame for his actions? He was a great guy who developed a terrible personality out of a freak accident. You might say, no, it's just really sad. Phineas Gage was awesome, and it's none of his fault that that happened.

But then, if a person is born with brain damage similar to what happened to Phineas Gage, can we keep blaming them for their irresponsible/violent behaviour? I guess something has to be done.

I think we need to stop looking for people to blame and start looking for ways to resolve problems.

If we say "Oh it's all the parents' fault, you can't do a thing about it unless you are the kid's parents", well, even if that were true, it makes things simple, but it doesn't resolve a damn thing. If it's all the parents' fault, what can we do to help? Nothing? That isn't useful at all. Why are we blaming the parents when we could find the real root of the problem and attempt to solve it? Similarly, why blame video games? We need to actually find out what makes people tick, instead of blaming everything around us.

Accurate statistcs might help too.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by greekanilater

Are violent video games ruining the youth of tomorrow? i think they are because violence has increased dramatically in the last 20 years

Video games have nothing to do with increased violence, and really violence isn’t increasing. It’s always been here. Slight increases could be due to the increased population across the world. But if you really think about it, where do all the violent video games come from? What about the horrifically violent anime and manga that we don’t even have in America? It’s all coming from Japan. But Japan has the lowest crime rate in the world. It’s true that Microsoft is getting some American games out there, but it’s not like just as soon as they made an Xbox crime rates shot up, and they still get our games in Japan too. I do love how this is a thread on a gaming site though. Of course everyone is going to be pro video games here.

It is true that a group of people went on a killing spree and blamed it on GTA, but people have done the same thing in the name of music, celebrities, TV shows, old killers, etc. If it wasn’t the game it would have been something else. It’s just how humans are made. Their always has been and always will be murderers. I assume by violence this thread is more about anger issues, if that’s the case sports cause much more violent tendencies than do video games. Video games are more likely to cause one to repress violent outbursts than express them. That’s not always a good thing, but it’s true.

Originally Posted by Chrissi

I am noticing a theme in this thread.

"If the parents raised the children well, the children won't be messed up."

"People are responsible for their own actions. Everyone can make good decisions."

I would like to cite the example of Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage was pretty awesome, but I don’t see how what happened to him really applies here. It is true that if one suffered from some sort of mental handicap that there is nothing anyone can do to stop it. They are still to blame for their actions. For example, there was a man my father knew in the military. He lost it one night and just started killing people. Not just enemies but shooting everyone around him. Its true that he wasn’t thinking clearly. He was under a lot of pressure and something inside of him snapped. But he was still responsible for his actions. Its not like just because he had mental issues he was exempt from the law. Phineas Gage lost his ability to filter his thoughts, and make rational decisions. He wasn’t a typical person. Violence definitely has a lot to do with your parents. They supply the genes and usually the environment. If both of those go together just right, you become a psycho killer. Its interesting to think that if you were that person, and you went through everything they did you would end up a killer too. But the truth is we are all different. One person in the situation, might snap and start killing, the other may kill him or her self, another could get away from it and better themselves, or go into shock. There are countess ways to deal with any given situation. Both nature and nurture play into everything we do. But it is impossible to separate the two so we may never know which has the greater impact.