Ban or Censor Video Games, Not Guns?

[Ravi]

Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here. I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic. But oh well. Whatever floats anybody's boat.

Huh. I saw many people debunk your OP while you pretended it wasn't debunked. Not sure what you were trying to get out of it unless you were just looking for atta boys.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here. I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic. But oh well. Whatever floats anybody's boat.

Huh. I saw many people debunk your OP while you pretended it wasn't debunked. Not sure what you were trying to get out of it unless you were just looking for atta boys.

Who debunked her OP? I saw not one post that PROVED that video games play no part in why these kids murder. Not one. Oh sure you proved that people murdered before video games were invented, but I doubt the OP believed that to be untrue even absent your proof.

 

[Foxfyre]

To "discuss the topic" we would have to accept the premise that mass murder is

1) a new phenomenon
2) on the rise


However, this thread is filled with links that prove both of those conclusions false.

Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.

Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.

Thank you. And also to the point is the uncommon component of these shootings in recent decades being targeted at total innocents. Has it happened in the past yes. Has it happened on the scale it has been happening in the last thirty years? No.

This phenomenon is similar to common recognized syndromes like autism, a word I had never hard when I was a kid, that was extremely uncommon when the movie "Rainman" was made, but now is recognized as more and more common. Is there more autism now than there used to be? If so, who among us doesn't want to know why?

Are schools and theaters now less safe places and more prone to attacks of young men determined to kill as many as they can? If so, who among us doesn't want to now why?

 

[catzmeow]

Good advice. However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it. And I really appreciate them. And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing. Which is my bad, I know.

Are those friends able to read and interpret scientific studies on mass murder? If so, their presence would be helpful, since you've chosen to ignore them in favor of clinging to an existing paradigm.

You've created a false syllogism in this thread.

1. Mass murder is escalating.
2. Violent video games are contributing to this effect.
3. Violent video games should be censored.

#1 & #2 are false, rendering #3 false as well.

If you want to debate a logical syllogism based upon factual data, that would be interesting. But, it's ridiculous to debate the merits of a conclusion that is based a flawed and inaccurate reasoning.

There is no escalation of mass murder.

If there were a link between mass murder and violent video games, there would have been an increase in mass murder since the 2000s, when violent video games began to be widely disseminated.

In point of fact, mass murders decreased in 2012, and the average for 2000-current is only 1.2% higher than the average in the 1980s.

Thus, your premise is false.

I'm sure you believe violent video games are bad. You may well be correct. But, there is no evidence that violent video games caused an increase in mass murder, and the increase in mass murder is actually flat since 1980. Thus, censoring violent video games would not reduce mass murder.

You and Tipper Gore will need to find another justification for censorship.

 

[Ravi]

Well for sure some don't seem to want anything to be accomplished here. I do believe we have USMB members with the intellect and ability to really explore and dissect a topic and I would like to do that with this topic. But oh well. Whatever floats anybody's boat.

Huh. I saw many people debunk your OP while you pretended it wasn't debunked. Not sure what you were trying to get out of it unless you were just looking for atta boys.

Who debunked her OP? I saw not one post that PROVED that video games play no part in why these kids murder. Not one. Oh sure you proved that people murdered before video games were invented, but I doubt the OP believed that to be untrue even absent your proof.

The premise is that video games cause mass murders. That premise hasn't been proven and is rather far-fetched.

 

[catzmeow]

Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.

Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.

The number of mass murders has changed very little since the 1960s. Thus, it is unlikely that a new causal factor has arisen. If the causes of mass murder had changed, the number of mass murders would also be affected. The numbers haven't changed, which suggests the causes also haven't changed.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Good advice. However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it. And I really appreciate them. And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing. Which is my bad, I know.

Are those friends able to read and interpret scientific studies on mass murder? If so, please invite them to explain the studies to you.

You've created a false syllogism here.

1. Mass murder is escalating.
2. Violent video games are contributing to this effect.
3. Therefore, Violent video games should be censored.

#1 & #2 are false, rendering #3 false as well.

If you want to debate a logical syllogism based upon factual data, that would be interesting. But, it's ridiculous to debate the merits of a conclusion that is based upon a flawed and inaccurate reasoning.

There is no escalation of mass murder.

If there were a link between mass murder and violent video games, there would have been an increase in mass murder since the 2000s, when violent video games began to be widely disseminated.

In point of fact, mass murders decreased in 2012, and the average for 2000-current is only 1.2% higher than the average in the 1980s.

Thus, your premise is false.

Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.

We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.

 

[Foxfyre]

Accomplishment is in the doing. It's entertainment. You do know that; yeah?

Zip else is accomplished. No shit. Millions of posts, probably. Number of opinions altered, still zero.

Try not to overthink it.

Good advice. However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it. And I really appreciate them. And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for reasoned conversation, discussion, and debate. Which is my bad, I know.

Cool. I'm sure that agreeing with you is "having a clue." Good thinking; and as an added bonus, you might just have wrestled Catz' award away from him/her.

You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue. I certainly have not required that on this thread. I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction. And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.

All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently. Some I agree with. Some I don't.

I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that. And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.

I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing. I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view. And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.

 

[catzmeow]

Good advice. However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it. And I really appreciate them. And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for that sort of thing. Which is my bad, I know.

Are those friends able to read and interpret scientific studies on mass murder? If so, please invite them to explain the studies to you.

You've created a false syllogism here.

1. Mass murder is escalating.
2. Violent video games are contributing to this effect.
3. Therefore, Violent video games should be censored.

#1 & #2 are false, rendering #3 false as well.

If you want to debate a logical syllogism based upon factual data, that would be interesting. But, it's ridiculous to debate the merits of a conclusion that is based upon a flawed and inaccurate reasoning.

There is no escalation of mass murder.

If there were a link between mass murder and violent video games, there would have been an increase in mass murder since the 2000s, when violent video games began to be widely disseminated.

In point of fact, mass murders decreased in 2012, and the average for 2000-current is only 1.2% higher than the average in the 1980s.

Thus, your premise is false.

Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.

We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.

The statistics show that the level of mass murder has only increased 1.2%. And, overall violent crimes are down. Thus, there is zero correlation between consumption of violent video games and societal violence (except maybe that consumption of violent video games decreases people's tendencies to offend violently since increased consumption of violent games has occurred at the same time as decreased levels of societal violence).

Statistics do not show that increased consumption of violent video games correlates to higher rates of violence or mass murder. The data is readily available: Violent video consumption has drastically increased; overall violence has decreased and mass murder is flat. If there were correlation, these statistics would be tracking together. Though looking at it in this thread, someone might well argue that there is a correlation between violent games and decreased violent crimes.

Proving causality would require further research, and is unlikely to be the case given the lack of correlation.

Just because two things seem to be related doesn't mean they are. Another example is rape and consumption of pornography. People often assume that rape is caused by pornography use. However, the societies with the highest consumption of porn typically have the lowest rates of sexual assault.

"Common sense" often isn't accurate.

 

[catzmeow]

Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.

We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.

Fail.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Untrue. The question asked in THIS thread is have video games played some part in causing the recent shootings. What happened in the past is irrelevant to that since we KNOW that video games were not to blame for anyone being shot pre 1970 or so for sure.

Your argument would be akin to if I stated that I think the high level mercury content in the water in the 20s caused people to kill other people and you rejoined with "well we don't have mercury in our water now and people are still killing each other" a perfectly valid statement , also completely unrelated to my post as I didn't claim that mercury in water was the ONLY cause of murders nor did I claim they played any role in murders TODAY.

The number of mass murders has changed very little since the 1960s. Thus, it is unlikely that a new causal factor has arisen. If the causes of mass murder had changed, the number of mass murders would also be affected. The numbers haven't changed, which suggests the causes also haven't changed.

Again that is untrue

If A contributes to Z and so does B contribute to Z that doesn't mean that A and B are interdependent A can rise or fall irrespective of what B does and still affect Z.

Take my scenario of water. Water purification really came online in this country at about the same time as video games hit the market. So maybe video games took the place of contaminated water in causing mental instability that leads to shootings.

You certainly don't have the data to prove that isn't a possibility.

Personally, I think there is some merit to charge that video games are unhealthy for kids who are fucked up to begin with. The same as guns are unhealthy for those kids.

IF these games didn't have physiological impact on people who play them, then why does the US military itself use them as recruiting tools and training aids?

They want their soldiers to be able to shoot, look past the gore , and move on, and so they use similar games to train to that end. Why if it doesn't have that effect?

Denying the possibility accomplishes nothing. Now the idea of banning video games is ludicrous and n fact I think the voluntary ESBRP rating system is adequate except that shitty parents ignore it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again correlation is not the same thing as causation. It is a reason to look at something as a possible causation, but it is really easy to draw a faulty conclusion just because two things are happening at the same time.

The ONLY reason to suspect violent video games and gratuitous violence in movies and on television is a factor in the mass shootings is because of the MANY studies that have been conducted suggesting we may have a problem there. And yes there are those like Castronova et al who reject those studies and some here who shrug them off as irrelevent.

But if there is a problem, I would think responsible parents and grandparents would want to know it. And if there isn't, well, that is good to know too.

 

[catzmeow]

You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue. I certainly have not required that on this thread. I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction. And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.

All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently. Some I agree with. Some I don't.

I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that. And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.

I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing. I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view. And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.

Oh, I see. You are not interested in ensuring that your claims are factually supported by evidence (i.e., debate). You're interested in having uninformed opinion given equal weight with facts.

The topic in this thread is based upon false assumptions, rendering any conclusions you might draw from the discussion false, and thus, resulting in pointless opinion-sharing and continued self-delusion.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.

We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.

Fail.

Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.

 

[catzmeow]

Again correlation is not the same thing as causation. It is a reason to look at something as a possible causation, but it is really easy to draw a faulty conclusion just because two things are happening at the same time.

The ONLY reason to suspect violent video games and gratuitous violence in movies and on television is a factor in the mass shootings is because of the MANY studies that have been conducted suggesting we may have a problem there. And yes there are those like Castronova et al who reject those studies and some here who shrug them off as irrelevent.

But if there is a problem, I would think responsible parents and grandparents would want to know it. And if there isn't, well, that is good to know too.

There is a lack of correlation, and no evidence of causality. There was a massive increase in consumption of violent video games from 2000-2012. If causality existed, a similar increase in mass murder would have occurred. This did not occur, in spite of your perceptions that it did. Thus, the likeliest explanation is that your perceptions are flawed.

No evidence of causality exists, nor is there data to support your fundamental assumptions. Thus, your presumption that violent video games should be censored rests upon nothing but uninformed opinion.

Your posts do not demonstrate a strong understanding of either the factual data on mass murder or on causality.

Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[catzmeow]

Now you're the one creating false premises. IF video games contributed to greater violence that doesn't necessarily mean violence would absolutely go up. Perhaps another factor that previously contributed to violence has went down at around the same period.

We just really don't know, which makes this a valid conversation.

Fail.

Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.

I provided the answer above, which you either did not understand, or ignored.

 

[Foxfyre]

You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue. I certainly have not required that on this thread. I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction. And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.

All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently. Some I agree with. Some I don't.

I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that. And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.

I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing. I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view. And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.

Oh, I see. You are not interested in ensuring that your claims are factually supported by evidence (i.e., debate). You're interested in having uninformed opinion given equal weight with facts.

The topic in this thread is based upon false assumptions, rendering any conclusions you might draw from the discussion false, and thus, resulting in pointless opinion-sharing and continued self-delusion.

Don't look now Catz, but I have made no claims of any kind on this subject. All I have done is report my own observations and what the studies are reporting and ask the question. If you think opinion sharing here is pointless and based on self-delusion you are as entitled to your opinion as anybody else. But it does beg the question of why you would enter a thread on a topic you thought pointless and delusional.

Please excuse me if I find the opinions of those who have done exhaustive studies on this subject and those who have given some thoughtful consideration to the various components, pro and con, to all be interesting. I'm sure you won't mind if I enjoy the exercise.

 

[Koios]

Good advice. However I am already spoiled having encountered on line friends who actually do have a clue, who can articulate an intelligent opinion, and who enjoy actually exploring a subject and testing to see whether their point of view can hold up against those who argue against it. And I really appreciate them. And sometimes get impatient with those who don't share my enthusiasm for reasoned conversation, discussion, and debate. Which is my bad, I know.

Cool. I'm sure that agreeing with you is "having a clue." Good thinking; and as an added bonus, you might just have wrestled Catz' award away from him/her.

You would be very wrong that I require anybody to agree with me in order to have a clue. I certainly have not required that on this thread. I thoroughly enjoy an exercise with a worthy debater who argues against my opinion or concept or conviction. And usually rep anybody who makes a better argument than I can.

All I am saying is that I know people on line, even here on USMB, who are excellent debaters and enjoy the exercise and do it competently. Some I agree with. Some I don't.

I also realize others have no interest or capability of doing that. And I'm good with them doing their thing too, just so they allow me to do mine.

I think we have a topic in this thread worth discussing. I invite anybody who agrees with that to participate and hope we get many different points of view. And I invite those who have no interest in the subject to find one they do like.

I'm never wrong. Jeez!!! Get a clue!!!!

 

[Ravi]

This "debate" reminds me of other debates, namely the ones that claim a causation between gay marriage and the destruction of heterosexual marriage.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Fail.

Why? Because you say so? Offer some proof that whatever caused people to shoot people in say any era pre 1970 is still a factor and I will consider your premise. Absent that, you are just guessing to make the data fit your preformed conclusion. Which I find odd coming from you based on are other interactions in this forum.

I provided the answer above, which you either did not understand, or ignored.

You provided nothing. And no reason to resort to claiming I don't understand what you are saying. I have shown you nothing but respect and ask for the same in return.

Let's say I have 3 water jugs and I use two of them to keep the third full at all times. Let's name them A, B, and C.

Now let's assume that I use A five times as often as I use B to fill C. In other words I use B every sixth time.

Now let's assume that you come along and observe for awhile and decide that hey A is responsible for C being full.

Now let's further assume that at some point I buy a new jug, we'll call it D, and I start using it 50% of the time to fill C. Now C is still getting filled, it's no more or no less filled than it was before I bought D, but it only stands to reason that my usage of A had to go down if C didn't rise. Correct or not?