• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

video games and the government

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The idea of censoring video games is a hot topic right now, which I believe is bogus. Before I elaborate any further, I want to point out that I know for a fact that no one is going to support me, not because they can prove me wrong (because they won't be able to) but because they don't want to believe me. You guys have got it programmed into your heads that video games are bad for society, so even if you read my post, you won't consider my words. Now, on to the good stuff.

I'm not going to take the traditional route that video game players tend to take, where they argue about free press yada yada yada. I'm going to take a more unique route, one where I present how Grand Theft Auto should be kept because of its violence.

It is proven through studies that the government does not want you to see that violent games like GTA and Manhunt have actually reduced crime by giving players an alternative adrenaline rush. It's like a punching bag, only you take out your killing desire rather than your frustration. If you ever need proof, pull up the records at the Department of Justice. You'll find here that crime has actually reduced, and can you give me a more suitable reason for this decline in crime than I've given you? Besides, with the growing popularity of video games, how do you suspect that the percentage of people committing violent crimes being gamers has increased by so much?

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "That's BS! I saw on the news a little kid who did a shooting at his school and killed ten people! Never held a gun before in his life!" Well, I'm confident that the game taught him how to aim, but it had no effect whatsoever on his state of mind. Of course, there is a solution to this. Games teach people how to aim without giving them a gun by showing them where the bullet will land (with the crosshair) whenever the gun is in x position in relevance to your eyes. This applies to first person shooters only, not third person. Therefore, that kid you are talking about has been playing Halo along with GTA. All we have to do is make aiming in FPSs less realistic by 1) removing the bobbing when you run, 2) making it to where the crosshair does not increase in diameter when you're in motion, thus making it easier in games to target than it is in real life, and 3) removing all the blood from FPSs.

Like I said, this isn't the response you want to hear, so it's not the response that you're going to accept. However, I'm bored right now because I can't sleep (and I don't have work tomorrow as a Thanksgiving treat), so I figured I'd do something.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The basis for game ratings is rediculous! The only difference between a Mature rated game and a Teen related game, is that Mature shows blood. And/Or displays the color "Red" when somethings is shot, now if a color other than red comes out of the victim the ESRB gives it a teen rating? WTF? :confused:
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Video games (and within ten years, Matrix-like virtual realities) are most likely going to occupy more and more of our time and are going to cater to wider and wider audiences. The trends show no sign of stopping, and our politicians need to get with the times and end this ridiculous censorship of America's newest form of art.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Kandahar said:
Video games (and within ten years, Matrix-like virtual realities) are most likely going to occupy more and more of our time and are going to cater to wider and wider audiences. The trends show no sign of stopping, and our politicians need to get with the times and end this ridiculous censorship of America's newest form of art.
hold it. You AGREE with me? OH MYF UCKING GOD!
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,319
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
hold it. You AGREE with me? OH MYF UCKING GOD!
Where would you get the idea I was pro-censorship?
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Kandahar said:
Where would you get the idea I was pro-censorship?
most people who don't play games tend to be biased towards the politicians' side because they have never played games and don't see the good they've caused. I didn't think you were a gamer because most people on this site are middle aged, so I guess I was stereotyping.
 
T

The Real McCoy

dstebbins said:
The idea of censoring video games is a hot topic right now, which I believe is bogus. Before I elaborate any further, I want to point out that I know for a fact that no one is going to support me, not because they can prove me wrong (because they won't be able to) but because they don't want to believe me. You guys have got it programmed into your heads that video games are bad for society, so even if you read my post, you won't consider my words. Now, on to the good stuff.

I'm not going to take the traditional route that video game players tend to take, where they argue about free press yada yada yada. I'm going to take a more unique route, one where I present how Grand Theft Auto should be kept because of its violence.

It is proven through studies that the government does not want you to see that violent games like GTA and Manhunt have actually reduced crime by giving players an alternative adrenaline rush. It's like a punching bag, only you take out your killing desire rather than your frustration. If you ever need proof, pull up the records at the Department of Justice. You'll find here that crime has actually reduced, and can you give me a more suitable reason for this decline in crime than I've given you? Besides, with the growing popularity of video games, how do you suspect that the percentage of people committing violent crimes being gamers has increased by so much?

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "That's BS! I saw on the news a little kid who did a shooting at his school and killed ten people! Never held a gun before in his life!" Well, I'm confident that the game taught him how to aim, but it had no effect whatsoever on his state of mind. Of course, there is a solution to this. Games teach people how to aim without giving them a gun by showing them where the bullet will land (with the crosshair) whenever the gun is in x position in relevance to your eyes. This applies to first person shooters only, not third person. Therefore, that kid you are talking about has been playing Halo along with GTA. All we have to do is make aiming in FPSs less realistic by 1) removing the bobbing when you run, 2) making it to where the crosshair does not increase in diameter when you're in motion, thus making it easier in games to target than it is in real life, and 3) removing all the blood from FPSs.

Like I said, this isn't the response you want to hear, so it's not the response that you're going to accept. However, I'm bored right now because I can't sleep (and I don't have work tomorrow as a Thanksgiving treat), so I figured I'd do something.


I agree 100% At first, when you said that no one is going to support you, I thought you were going to make some ridiculous claim that video games increase violence. Bravo.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
dstebbins said:
The idea of censoring video games is a hot topic right now, which I believe is bogus. Before I elaborate any further, I want to point out that I know for a fact that no one is going to support me, not because they can prove me wrong (because they won't be able to) but because they don't want to believe me. You guys have got it programmed into your heads that video games are bad for society, so even if you read my post, you won't consider my words. Now, on to the good stuff.

I'm not going to take the traditional route that video game players tend to take, where they argue about free press yada yada yada. I'm going to take a more unique route, one where I present how Grand Theft Auto should be kept because of its violence.

It is proven through studies that the government does not want you to see that violent games like GTA and Manhunt have actually reduced crime by giving players an alternative adrenaline rush. It's like a punching bag, only you take out your killing desire rather than your frustration. If you ever need proof, pull up the records at the Department of Justice. You'll find here that crime has actually reduced, and can you give me a more suitable reason for this decline in crime than I've given you? Besides, with the growing popularity of video games, how do you suspect that the percentage of people committing violent crimes being gamers has increased by so much?

Now, I know what some of you are thinking: "That's BS! I saw on the news a little kid who did a shooting at his school and killed ten people! Never held a gun before in his life!" Well, I'm confident that the game taught him how to aim, but it had no effect whatsoever on his state of mind. Of course, there is a solution to this. Games teach people how to aim without giving them a gun by showing them where the bullet will land (with the crosshair) whenever the gun is in x position in relevance to your eyes. This applies to first person shooters only, not third person. Therefore, that kid you are talking about has been playing Halo along with GTA. All we have to do is make aiming in FPSs less realistic by 1) removing the bobbing when you run, 2) making it to where the crosshair does not increase in diameter when you're in motion, thus making it easier in games to target than it is in real life, and 3) removing all the blood from FPSs.

Like I said, this isn't the response you want to hear, so it's not the response that you're going to accept. However, I'm bored right now because I can't sleep (and I don't have work tomorrow as a Thanksgiving treat), so I figured I'd do something.

I would like to see these studies that prove that playing violent video games reduces crime, I doubt there is any solid evidence to support that assertion. I don't mind companies making violent video games; I myself play somewhat graphic video games like first person shooters and such. I am a big fan of video games. But than again, I don't see any harm in putting ratings on video games. Why not? There are ratings on movies and music. If it helps parents to make better decisions about what games they allow their children to watch, than all the better.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Just because violent crime rates declined after those games were released doesn't mean they caused the decline......but its likely they did have some impact. Anyone know of any studies conducted on violent video games' impact on long term aggressive behavior? (and not just ones that point out the obvious - violent people are drawn to violent games more so than less violent people)

I think violent video games DO increase violent tendencies in the short term; I've thrown too many controllers to claim otherwise
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I am a parent of two teenage daughters who went through a period of liking video games that I didn't approve of. Silent Hill and Metal Gear Solid, most particularly. Luckily for me, they never showed any interest in Manhunt, Grand Theft Auto or any of the other ultra-violent games that have become so popular, but I found those two to be disturbing enough that I didn't give them much peace about playing them. But they were good girls who showed no signs of desensitization or any other ill effect from playing them so I allowed them to have them (although, I refused to purchase them!) but with the stipulation that they could only play them after their little sister went to bed. At least these two games had some sort of a storyline and a reason for the mayhem that they were trying to work through. I'm not sure if that is true with some of the other games I mentioned above - I will admit that I don't know much about any of the other violent games.

They have since grown out of an interest in video games for the most part with no apparent harm. But still I think it's unfortunate that so many people find entertainment in role playing murderers. And quite realistically at that. Frankly that sickens me personally.

But, that said, there are some very good games out there for children and young adults that are not violent and have a lot to offer in entertainment value - you just have to look for them. Then there is Katamari Damacy - mom's favorite game - that game is sooooo addictive. :doh
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
George_Washington said:
I would like to see these studies that prove that playing violent video games reduces crime, I doubt there is any solid evidence to support that assertion. I don't mind companies making violent video games; I myself play somewhat graphic video games like first person shooters and such. I am a big fan of video games. But than again, I don't see any harm in putting ratings on video games. Why not? There are ratings on movies and music. If it helps parents to make better decisions about what games they allow their children to watch, than all the better.
1) Like I said above, no one who doesn't play games is going to believe me because they don't want to believe me.
2) I saw it on the news. I don't have a link, but come on! Surely, if you wanted to, you could see the logic at work when I point out the words alternative adrenaline rush. If you wanted to, you could see that happening just like I can see the Pentagon playing chess with the soldiers. Of course, you don't want to see it, so you're not even going to consider it.

Befuddled_Stoner said:
Just because violent crime rates declined after those games were released doesn't mean they caused the decline......but its likely they did have some impact.
again, can you give me a more logical reason?:roll:
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
1) Like I said above, no one who doesn't play games is going to believe me because they don't want to believe me.
2) I saw it on the news. I don't have a link, but come on! Surely, if you wanted to, you could see the logic at work when I point out the words alternative adrenaline rush. If you wanted to, you could see that happening just like I can see the Pentagon playing chess with the soldiers. Of course, you don't want to see it, so you're not even going to consider it.


again, can you give me a more logical reason?:roll:
What are you asking for? You want me/us/somebody to believe that pretending to kill people somehow makes people less likely to kill people? Ummm, how about if someone needs to release homicidal pressure with an "alternative adrenaline rush" that that person needs serious help? What happens when their Playstation takes a dive?
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
mixedmedia said:
What are you asking for? You want me/us/somebody to believe that pretending to kill people somehow makes people less likely to kill people?
Think about it from an unbiased standpoint. Think of it as masturbating. I know that's a vulgar way to put it, but if you won't (not can't, won't) see the punching bag perspective, I know of no other comparison. They masturbate to get the orgasms that almost match having sex.

While typing the last sentence, I thought of something else: Try playing Grand Theft Auto yourself. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about, and then maybe you'll be willing to see from both ends.

Ummm, how about if someone needs to release homicidal pressure with an "alternative adrenaline rush" that that person needs serious help? What happens when their Playstation takes a dive?
Maybe when their Playstation breaks, they get put in a home, but can you give me a better solution for someone who needs this alternative adrenaline rush besides thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars in therapy? Giving thrill killers a punching bag like Grand Theft Auto is an efficient, inexpensive way to combat violent crime, whether some people perceive it as "morally wrong" or not, and if politicians saw that, crime could be significantly reduced.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
Think about it from an unbiased standpoint. Think of it as masturbating. I know that's a vulgar way to put it, but if you won't (not can't, won't) see the punching bag perspective, I know of no other comparison. They masturbate to get the orgasms that almost match having sex.
Perhaps I am, but I really don't think I'm coming at this from a biased standpoint. More a common sense one. Your theory just doesn't jibe for me. Just as masturbation does not prevent rape, video games are not going to prevent murder. Rape is not about sex and murder is not about fun. If someone is homicidal, nothing short of intensive therapy is going to change that. And in some cases, not even that. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Are we to pinpoint homicidal people and equip them with video games while they remain on our streets???

While typing the last sentence, I thought of something else: Try playing Grand Theft Auto yourself. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about, and then maybe you'll be willing to see from both ends.
Why should I play Grand Theft Auto. The thought repulses me? What might I get out of it?


Maybe when their Playstation breaks, they get put in a home, but can you give me a better solution for someone who needs this alternative adrenaline rush besides thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars in therapy? Giving thrill killers a punching bag like Grand Theft Auto is an efficient, inexpensive way to combat violent crime, whether some people perceive it as "morally wrong" or not, and if politicians saw that, crime could be significantly reduced.
Well again, I just don't see it that way. How many "thrill killers" do we have? How do we know who they are before they've killed someone? Do you really believe that playing a video game is going to make them safe?

Are you sure you're not just defending these games because you like playing them so much? This theory is more than a little flimsy and not well thought out.
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
First off, as a gamer myself (ejoying my X-box 360 that I won from Pepsi WOOHOO), I can say with CERTAINTY Video games can increase violence!

The games that do this, are the shitty ones, with bad controls, and decent stroylines (because I want to play it to see what happens), and I get so frustrated that people wasted that much time putting such crap on the market, I break something. Or when your friend next to you shot you in the head for the fifth time in a row, the overwhelming desire to cripple him (and his accuracy) by punching him in the arm, and promptly doing so is a definate increase in violence. (or unplugging his controller).

Of course, this doesn't count as an increase in violent crime, and I think generally, video games can be a great source to vent minor frustrations upon digital victims.

I love nothing more than playing Single Player Battlefield 1942, with a horde of stupid bots I can obliterate. or Kameo for X-box 360 now, and Perfect Dark too. DIE BOTS DIE! (the bots the)
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sometimes though, i forgot to mention, some games are too engrossing, like GTAIII and the varients.

I remember after playing for quite some time, and driving home from my friends, i had an overwhelming desire to crash into a cop-car and drive off in his vehicle. So some "back to reality" time is certainly healthly too.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
mixedmedia said:
Perhaps I am, but I really don't think I'm coming at this from a biased standpoint. More a common sense one. Your theory just doesn't jibe for me. Just as masturbation does not prevent rape, video games are not going to prevent murder. Rape is not about sex and murder is not about fun. If someone is homicidal, nothing short of intensive therapy is going to change that. And in some cases, not even that. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. Are we to pinpoint homicidal people and equip them with video games while they remain on our streets???
Okay, so maybe the masturbation comparison didn't work, but let's go back to the punching back one. It is common knowledge that punching a pillow can prevent you from hospitalizing the person your mad at. About the "nothing short of intensive therapy" BS, that's just what politicians want you to think. Why don't you run for legislature? I garentee you that, if Hilary Clinton ever changed her mind, you would too, because you're so damn gullible that you'll believe anything that politicians say.


Why should I play Grand Theft Auto. The thought repulses me? What might I get out of it?
Well, you might get an understanding of where I'm coming from, which you apparently can't get from this thread, possibly because I've never been good at putting my thoughts into words.




Well again, I just don't see it that way. How many "thrill killers" do we have? How do we know who they are before they've killed someone?
Now you know damn well what my response is going to be. Instead of identifying thrill killers in a crowd, we encourage people who think they have a killing desire to execute this desire through video games.

Do you really believe that playing a video game is going to make them safe?
In a word, yes. Of course, you're not going to believe me until you play GTA yourself because you don't want to believe me.

Are you sure you're not just defending these games because you like playing them so much? This theory is more than a little flimsy and not well thought out.
if I had a nickle for every time I heard this, I could buy everybody on this site breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day for the next year and still have money left over.

I don't even play Grand Theft Auto. In fact, Nintendo all the way. However, it's not becauseI despise the message that it sends. I don't play it because it's just not fun to me. Everyone has their own taste, and GTA isn't of mine. Like I said before, I'm a Nintendo person, and we all know that their games are family-friendly.

Of course, if I ever got a killing desire, I might play GTA. You never know.:cool:
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A person with the desire to kill, will propably kill. Games won't prevent that necessarily. However, people who "go postal," it may. The ones who have hordes of frustrations and no way to vent them, are dangerous people, because they are otherwise normal. It's rarely a case of one incident that cause people to react violently (excluding personal gain through violence, murder or roberry for money etc). Usually it's the wieght of combined frustrations: Bills to pay, trouble at home, family illness and loss of job, or hope.

Granted, too much gaming, is obviously unhealthy too. Little physical activity coupled with neglect of responsibilities, studies, and proper nutrition.

A really good study, would be rates of domestic violence among gamers.
Also, a determination of whether the people who are attracted to video games, would otherwise be violent, or if they are attracted to games, because they are not violent to begin with.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
And if I had a nickel for everytime someone tried to use Hillary Clinton against me on the downside of a debate I am sure I could cure cancer....or at least acid reflux disease.

Good luck with that theory, oh dubious one.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This theory is more than a little flimsy and not well thought out.
going back to this one, look back to all the greatest thinkers of all time. Do you think they paid any attention to common sense? Many were diagnosed with insanity for their brilliant work. And how many scientists made a breakthrough that was immediantly accepted? Not many, I can assure you. In fact, many experimentation results that yeilded theories that we take for granted today left so many open holes that even the scientists who discovered them were certain they had made a mistake. Take for example the theory that DNA has all of our genes. The scientist who discovered this (I forget his name), along with everyone else at that time, was certain that only a protien was complex enough to contain every gene in the human body. Everyone swore up and down that he was a lunatic. Some petitioned for him to be put in a freaking HOME!

My conclusion: Just because my theory leaves unanswered questions (and yet you still haven't pointed out what those unanswered questions are, saying only that you don't see it that way without elaborating on why you don't see it that way) doesn't mean it's wrong.

mixedmedia said:
And if I had a nickel for everytime someone tried to use Hillary Clinton against me on the downside of a debate I am sure I could cure cancer....or at least acid reflux disease.

Good luck with that theory, oh dubious one.
and yet you cannot continue debating with me? Perhaps I've proved you wrong.:cool:
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
going back to this one, look back to all the greatest thinkers of all time. Do you think they paid any attention to common sense? Many were diagnosed with insanity for their brilliant work. And how many scientists made a breakthrough that was immediantly accepted? Not many, I can assure you. In fact, many experimentation results that yeilded theories that we take for granted today left so many open holes that even the scientists who discovered them were certain they had made a mistake. Take for example the theory that DNA has all of our genes. The scientist who discovered this (I forget his name), along with everyone else at that time, was certain that only a protien was complex enough to contain every gene in the human body. Everyone swore up and down that he was a lunatic. Some petitioned for him to be put in a freaking HOME!

My conclusion: Just because my theory leaves unanswered questions (and yet you still haven't pointed out what those unanswered questions are, saying only that you don't see it that way without elaborating on why you don't see it that way) doesn't mean it's wrong.


and yet you cannot continue debating with me? Perhaps I've proved you wrong.:cool:
Dude, if I am known for anything on this forum it is not for walking away when the heat is on. A lack of tenacity I do not have. I just don't see much here to debate about and, from the looks of it, no one else is much interested in debating it either.

I don't want to fight. No offense. Take care.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well, I've proven this bozo wrong. Anyone else wanna get owned?
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
dstebbins said:
Well, I've proven this bozo wrong. Anyone else wanna get owned?
Adorable.

No? Anyone?

Nope I think just about everybody's scared of your formidable intellect and powerful theories, you stud you.
 

dstebbins

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
169
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
mixedmedia said:
Adorable.

No? Anyone?

Nope I think just about everybody's scared of your formidable intellect and powerful theories, you stud you.
and yet you keep coming back to this thread.:?
 

libertarian_knight

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
997
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Enough with the carrying-on, it's an effective way to kill a decent thread.
 
Top Bottom