Do video games contribute to violence?

[MisterMike]

..or do R movies?
.. or anything we watch?

... do Martial Arts???

(this oughtta be fun)

[Rich Parsons]

Yes, they all do.

And so do parents, and religion and books and ..., .

Yet the whole list could be argued to provide either postive examples or outlets to avoid violence unacceptable by society.

(* And I am waiting for other peoples opinions as well *)
:asian:

[Jay Bell]

Not anymore then the evening news...

If a video game pushes a youngster to commit acts of violence, then something was there to spawn the act beforehand. A good kid doesn't suddenly become violent for the mere fact of playing Counterstrike.

If parents and society as a whole would get their head out of their bums about the problems with our kids, instead of finding a scapegoat with a controller and an A/C adapter, we might not be so bad off. Movies, Music, TV, Video Games. How often do you hear chanting of REALITY based issues like parental guidance? I, for one, get pretty tired of the foo-foo brush offs that people use to dodge the fact that they aren't good parents.

It honestly seems that the shift of good values and morals seems to be heading towards the bad side. It's easier nowdays to plop kids in front of video games and use that as a babysitter. Kids learn from their environment. If that environment is nothing but Movies, TV, Video Games and the like, then someone isn't doing their job as a parent very well.

I contribute a great deal of the problems with parents today as just plain and simple laziness. It's too much effort when we're exhausted from a 12 hour work day to go out back and play kickball with my daughter....(thick sarcasm) In the generation above mine, for the most part, parents were more focused on their children then themselves. Thankfully, these are the values that were instilled in me and most of the people I know...and we continue to pass them on. It seems like starting with Gen-X (mine), it started to decline. Parents put their own comforts and hobbies above those of their children.

Everytime I go shopping at the mall here, it makes me want to pull my hair out. A woman can be shopping and her four kids are running around, frothing at the mouth like rabid banshees. She doesn't bat an eye. Or watching as a little four-year old boy is trailing behind "Mom" (used loosely) 30 feet or so and the "parent" is oblivious to time and space....except the next shop she needs to duck into.

People need to get off of their asses and be parents. If it's too much time, effort or work...imagine how much time, effort and work is going to be involved when the child grows up and becomes a contributing member of society.



My 2 cents...

[hardheadjarhead]

A few years back many people were talking about the game "Doom" and how the Columbine shooters were playing the game prior to their shooting spree. The game had pipe bombs. They had pipe bombs. The game had shotguns. They had shotguns. The game had Plasma Rifles. They had...uh...shotguns.

Well...I suspect some of the victims played the game, too. I know perhaps a dozen kids who played the game at the time. How MANY games of "Doom" sold? Hundreds of thousands? A million or more? The kids I know all turned out okay.

Where are all the killers?

In the thread titled "Does pornography cause rape?" others agreed with me that such a thing does NOT cause violence. Nor does rock music, martial arts training, video games, movies, "playing army" as a child, joining the military* or owning a gun.

Violent people are caused by a host of factors...bad parenting, neglect, genetics (yes...genetics...again I bring that up), substance abuse, stress, stress, and more stress.

Society looks for a an unblemished lamb upon which to cast our sins, and then we hope to turn it loose into the wilderness. We can't accept (or understand) the complexities of the causes of violence...so we look for something to blame.

Point of fact...violent crime is at ONE FOURTH of what it was in 1973. Its in the DOJ statistics. Back in 1973 we didn't have video games. We had bad hairstyles, atrocious clothes, platform shoes, and some of the worst pop music to ever hit the charts.

Personally, I think Osmonds are to blame for the violence of those days. David Cassidy as well.

Let them be my sacrifical lambs. At least for the moment.


Regards,


Steve Scott

*The Rambo syndrome. Back in the day we heard how Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman (The Texas Tower sniper) were ex-Marines. The press beat that to death.

[MisterMike]

Good posts. I have to agree. It kills me to see these lawsuits come up on Game companies. Who let the kids get the game in the first place??

[Fightfan00]

Personally I think that a lot of things contribute as a whole to vilence not just one thing.Things like famliy enviornments,the news,video games, friends.

[theletch1]

Video games, movies, music are all scapegoats for the inherent laziness of many parents. However, there are many more parents who find themselves hitting a brick wall when it comes to instilling the discipline needed to get their kids to adulthood as functioning members of society. When I was a kid I KNEW that my parents had the freedom to punish me as they saw fit. This country has a definite tendency to "go overboard" on legislation. I used to get a good whack on the backside for screwing up, my kids still do (but not nearly as often as I did) and they stay out of trouble. I can remember being blown away by seeing the child of a neighbor (about 10 years ago) stand in front of their parent, hands on hips and scream "You can't spank me or I'll call social services on you!!" This kid was only about 11 but had had it so ingrained in their head that there were government agencies that would step in to make their parents stop "trying to tell them what to do" that the parent had lost any authority that they might have other wise had. Now, obviously, the child would not have been removed simply because they had been spanked once for something but the threat of having "The Gov't" snooping around in every nook and cranny of their lives was enough to give the child WAY too much leverage. So, IMO, while laziness on the part of the parents is a part of the problem impotence on the part of the parent is just as big a part of the problem. If a child is raised believing that they do not have to take responsibility for their actions then the boundaries of acceptable behavior are bound to be stepped across.

[Rich Parsons]

A few things on Children.

If the parents do the right thing early on the child will understnad rigt from wrong. It is when you laugh at it because it is funny for the little kid to do something, and then as (s)he grows older they do not understand the difference.



As to a lesson to an underage child. There was this smart mouth 14 year old. Teen Hang out. I was a teen then also, although 18 or older. So, he hit me and said I could do nothing about it. I told him to never do that again. LAter that night he came up and hit me again and then said I could do nothign about it. I reached out and pinned him the the wall with one arm. I then explained that no one was going to come for his help. I even yelled for help for him. I called for the police. The police station being about 300 yards away behind me and the building I was pinning him too. I then proceeded to explain to him that I was going to beat him up, and when he brought the police I would jsut tell them he had been hitting people all night and someone must have hit him back. Not me officer. No way. So, I asked him where is the law now to protect him? He started to cry. I asked him if he thought being a little kid was going to save him? He said he was sorry and asked with Please Can I go home. I let go of him and told him to go use the bathroom to clean himself up and then to go home and think about what he had done.

I never had a problem with him again. Yes, it was illegal for me to touch him. Yet, at the time I thought it was best for him to learn about the real world. And later yes I did have a problem from this when the police investigated the miss handleing of children. Yet, after the investigation, no one pressed charges including the police. There are always ramafications to what you do.

People should understand that there is such a thing as taking responsibility for their actions. Including parenting.

:asian:

[theletch1]

People should understand that there is such a thing as taking responsibility for their actions. Including parenting I couldn't agree more. I take responsibility for every action that I do as a parent as well as responsibility for at least a level of what my children do. The boy in your post is a prime example of what I was speaking of in my last post.... a child who has learned that the system is geared to an almost Spanish Inquisition level against the parent/adult in most situations. Knowing this, many children are very able to manipulate their parent/guardian/whoever by simply threatening "intervention" by the now "all powerful" DSS. Granted, the DSS has very strict guidelines which they must follow but many parents are either ignorant of the law or simply overawed at the idea of taking on a governmental institution as a result of trying to raise their children. Me, I've had DSS in the house as a result of a custody battle with my ex-wife (got a glowing report thank you). I am strict but fair and attempt to instill the same ideology in my children that I carry myself. Yes, take responsibility for your actions whatever they may be, but remember that a bit of trouble for you now can save a lifetime of trouble for your kids. Next time a child pulls the "I'll call DSS" stunt on ya, punish them as you normally would and then hand them the phone. Maybe it's time we took the governing of the house back from the kids.:soapbox:

[hardheadjarhead]

I agree there is a LOT of lazy parenting out there.

However I don't necessarily think that discipline in the home has gone down in the last thirty years as some political pundits and relgious leaders might suggest...we don't have a ruler to measure discipline's decline over the decades, and blaming society's ills on this one facet of family life is problematic. I recall parents in the sixties blaming lazy parenting for the social ills of that decade and the one after it.

Back to the topic, though...it was suggested that video games, et al. are the "violence scapegoat" for lazy parents who do not discipline their children. In other words lazy parents blame societies ills on these forms of entertainment.

Perhaps, but some of the most disciplined (and disciplining) parents I know list videos and the rest as a cause. Two of my black belts (one inactive in MA, the other current) are Baptist ministers and not at all reluctant to spank. I should mention that I don't believe they're abusive. They, like the lazy parents, list videos, rock music, and the like as prime sources of violence in our children.

Lack of discipline can be a cause of violence when combined with other forms of neglect. If the parents love the child without "tough love", we get a spoiled little t**d along the lines of the one Rich encountered and like the one Letch mentioned. If the we also see lack of any form of affection, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect of basic physical needs (proper nutrition, clothing, hygiene) we then start to see an "at risk" kid.

If we see physical abuse..."discipline" taken to a horrible extreme, then we start to see a truly warped child.

There is a positive correlation between violence in the home and violent behavior in children. Studies confirm this, but most of us instinctivly know it. Here we are not talking about the crack across the butt with a hand when we encounter disrespect or "in your face defiance". Physical and emotional abuse can not mask itself as discipline in any form, and clearly crosses all lines of social propriety.

Parents, some of them wounded products of these violent homes, often display a "knee-jerk" response to this syndrome and react by not physically disciplining their own children at all. They avoid this for fear they may do as their own parents did. They think some inner monster will arise and unshackle decent restraint, thereby sucking them into the cycle of violence they were caught in as a youngster.

Sometimes their fears are justified, and restraining their hand may be what is called for...particularly when they struggle daily with the boiling anger that is their legacy.

Regards,


Steve

[Makalakumu]

We live in a violent society. More violent then any industrialized nation on earth. Our neighbors to the north have a 20th the amount of violence, measurable in the amount of crime. The problem is our society. The problem is the every-man-for-themselves attitude. Who wouldn't want to kill after being exposed to that for a lifetime. I think we need to look at what other countries are doing. Hell, we have more people in prison then the 10 most industrialized countries combined!

Upnorthkyosa

[hardheadjarhead]

As to lack of discipline in youngsters, Letch and Rich might like this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/0437352EBDB84A0E86256DEC0024EC0E?OpenDocument&Headline=Teachers+get+no+respect+as+student+rudene ss+rises



Regards,


Steve

[Rich Parsons]

Yes, I agree the lack of respect is a problem. I think that the school's hands are tied by too much legislation.


When I have had rowdy cousins or nephews or such, I find that finger locks work well,Yet this would not fly in a school setting.

I also had some friends leave their child with me. He was not playing baseball well with the other kids in the back field. I asked him to play right, and stop changing the rules ;). Then told him he had to play nice. Still being rude and talking back. I took him back up to the townhouse and talked to him. TO told him he could continue and I would then spank him and he woudl go inside. Or he could go back out play nice and by the rules. His reply was that his parents do not spank him I replied, that his parents knew that I believed in spanking. And they might never let him stay with me again. Yet, either way he was going to get the spanking and then his parents and I could deal with it later. He believed me and played well with the others.

Yet, this was a few years ago, even today talk like this would get someone into trouble in the right situations. Yet, DSS in some cases will not take children away from horrible situations.

Not sure how to fix, only that it is bad right now.
:asian:

[hardheadjarhead]

We live in a violent society. More violent then any industrialized nation on earth.


It is difficult to compare crime statistics from one nation to another due to the different statistical definitions present in each country. New Zealand, for example, does not include sexual assault in its crime stats. The U.S. does. Some countries count the number of offenses, others the numbers of victims. Each country has different rules when counting multiple offenses of a single offender.

For more information, see:

http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2002/intl-comparisons-crime/section-2.html


The problem is the every-man-for-themselves attitude. Who wouldn't want to kill after being exposed to that for a lifetime.

Me. Rich. Letch. I assume you.

The sociopathy you describe isn't nurtured so easily, as I've indicated.

I believe that our society isn't as selfish as you suggest. Witness the outpouring of sympathy for 9-11 victims, the courageous behavior of individuals involved in that horror, and subsequent heroic actions on the part of our service personnel. If such social consciousness and expression of duty is anamolous, then I leave it to others to prove it to my satisfaction. I will remain optimistic until then.



Regards,

Steve Scott

[Makalakumu]

Gavin DeBecker writes about this very subject in "The Gift of Fear." We all have violent and criminal thoughts, because we are all not too different from the criminals. The difference is when we act on those thoughts. Why is a question that we could argue for a long long time.

"Where the thoughts come from?" is another good question. Our society is filled with violence. We are surrounded by it. By age 18 our children have witnessed thousands of "fake" murders and other crimes. I think we can safely say that our society plants these thoughts in our children.

But, again, what is the difference between us and other countries? Even if we take into account the way they count thier statistics, there is a correlation that goes far beyond the norms of statistical significance. The US is the most violent of all industrialized nations. Why?

In my home state we have numerous communities that straddle the border with Canada. On one side people lock their doors at night because of the fear of crime. On the other, they don't worry about it. What is the difference?

upnorthkyosa

[Jay Bell]

Yet, this was a few years ago, even today talk like this would get someone into trouble in the right situations. Yet, DSS in some cases will not take children away from horrible situations.


Justification of Force in Arizona

13-403, Section 1


1. A parent or guardian and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or incompetent person may use reasonable and appropriate physical force upon the minor or incompetent person when and to the extent reasonably necessary and appropriate to maintain discipline.

DSS is an absolute crock (here anyway). As some of you know, I live in Phoenix. DSS spends it's time and workload investigating parents that talk "stern" to their kids, while savage acts are being done in other households. The governor here has finally put her foot down and is bringing investigations up against DSS to better things. In the past few months, child abuse of horrific ways have come to light...and DSS had had these same case files for years, yet nothing was done after 8-12 complaints against the parents.


Try Giving Excuses to Dead Children (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/1128frilets282.html)

Arizona Child Abuse Statistics (http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/acainfo/statistics/factsheet.htm)

[theletch1]

The school system here (Roanoke county Virginia) emplemented what it calls "Character Counts" education a few years ago. When walking through the schools (elementary through high) you'll see posters pointing out things that are generally considered good character traits. These are the same things that my children have had instilled in them from day one. Yes, kids see a great deal of violence on film or in video games, hell, they see a lot of it on the street. That doesn't mean that each of them will act upon thoughts that may be implanted by seeing these things. All of us still have an instinct somewhere deep inside us to kill. I don't care how much you deny it, it IS there. It just depends on what level of control you've been given through education. That education begins with your parents/authority figures and continues through out your life with the people that you choose as role models.

I believe that our society isn't as selfish as you suggest. Witness the outpouring of sympathy for 9-11 victims, the courageous behavior of individuals involved in that horror, and subsequent heroic actions on the part of our service personnel. If such social consciousness and expression of duty is anamolous, then I leave it to others to prove it to my satisfaction. I will remain optimistic until then. Say what you want buy I have to agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Americans are the most giving group of people on the planet. Some will say that we have more therefore we should give more. That fits with good character, and for the most part, America has it. The generousity doesn't stop at our own borders either. Yes, we've a real problem with violence in this country and the perpetrators of the violence are much younger than they were 20 years ago. I don't believe there is any one cause nor any sure cure for it. All we can do, folks, is care for our own home and family and offer support to others who are attempting to do the same.

[hardheadjarhead]

When walking through the schools (elementary through high) you'll see posters pointing out things that are generally considered good character traits. These are the same things that my children have had instilled in them from day one.

This sort of thing can help reinforce what healthy kids have been taught at home...for others, it introduces them to social concepts not taught at home. For some kids this can make a difference. For others, it will not.

The boy that lives with us (actually now in college) was raised in an abusive home until he was fifteen. He moved in with us after a brief court battle.

Social interaction with good kids in the martial arts, church groups, and at school showed him what good parents were like. He was easily able to contrast that with what he was living with. It helped save him from "the Dark Side". He still struggles with issues, but he knows the difference between right and wrong.

For some kids, this doesn't work. Each child is unique. My wife's nephew, raised by his grandparents, turned out a spoiled little brat. He's a compulsive liar, manipulative, and lazy. There was no abuse in his home...but no discipline.

We call DSS here CPS (Child Protective Services). Many of the same criticisms you all voice are justly leveled at this department as well. About the only good it does reporting to them is it alleviates the burden of the law's requirement to do so. In Indiana, anybody witnessing or hearing of abuse is required to report it.

-----------------

Back to violence...Most of us DO have violent thoughts. But, as has been mentioned, no thought or impulse is necessarily evil...it is the act that is or isn't.

Are we bombarded by violent images daily? Certainly. So are people all over the world. Actions films, R rated movies, video games are not unique to our culture. The Japanese play these games with great zeal...as do the Germans, Brits, French. Their violence rates have not escalated. Some might say its because they lack guns...but violence has other ways of expressing itself.


Regards,


Steve Scott

[rmcrobertson]

By the way, the reasons that organizations like Child Protective services don't work is the systematic gutting of their budgets after years of lower and lower tax revenues, so that their case workers end up grossly overburdened with cases.

Much of what happens is what's called, "unfunded mandates:" the State says you MUST do a thing, but apportions no money for it. So...

And Americans are really more generous than anybody else? Huh.

My understanding is that we give less of our GNP than any other country, certinly far less than the Scandinavian countries. But maybe I've got this wrong...

[Jay Bell]

By the way, the reasons that organizations like Child Protective services don't work is the systematic gutting of their budgets after years of lower and lower tax revenues, so that their case workers end up grossly overburdened with cases.

I won't disagree with this at all. It's very much the same here...however...why pretend to have an IRS when they don't collect taxes?

[hardheadjarhead]

I suspect much of their (DSS/CPS) reluctance to act is a fear of litigation. They are constantly accused of trying to break up families and ruining the reputation of stalwart citizens.

Some of those stalwart citizens are hurting their kids pretty badly, too. I saw a situation of this first hand when I witnessed a mom (a woman, by her own words, of reputation) pick her obstinate four year old off of the floor by her hair. The girl's feet left the ground. Mom then carried her to the family SUV like that...like she was luggage. We called CPS, to no avail. The daughter and her sister denied it happened.

One problem is the "he said, she said" situation. Often the kid won't make a claim against the parent (even in the face of pretty nasty abuse), and it becomes difficult to make a case. See above example.

In the case I listed in a previous post concerning my ward, it was his word against his father's. His sister stood with the father and claimed she didn't witness any abuse. The father, a disgusting sociopath with a record of unprosecuted sex offenses, also claimed that nothing happened. CPS's hands were tied.

We managed to get the boy into the Youth Shelter with CPS's recommendation and then three days later an attorney convinced the judge to give us custody. Even then, the limits of the law were somewhat stretched. We had but ONE precedent for making the case. She bought it based on the boy's affadavit...but she knew that if the father had contested it, we would have lost and she would have had egg on her face. The father didn't contest it. A pro bono attorney apparently told him he'd lose. Good thing the pro bono attorney didn't want to really work for free for a guy the likes of the father.

So CPS had a positive role in this insofar as getting the kid into the Youth Shelter. I can say they did what they could do, and the reps were genuinely concerned for our ward. Still, their investigation brought nothing to light that a prosecutor could use against the dad.

The dad is dead as of last year. Heart attack. I mourn his loss, as I had fantasized about killing him myself. I say with no hesitation that the only thing that kept me from doing this was a respect for the law.

Maybe I play too many video games.

Or not enough, given how long he lived.



Regards,


Steve

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
By the way, the reasons that organizations like Child Protective services don't work is the systematic gutting of their budgets after years of lower and lower tax revenues, so that their case workers end up grossly overburdened with cases.

Much of what happens is what's called, "unfunded mandates:" the State says you MUST do a thing, but apportions no money for it. So...

And Americans are really more generous than anybody else? Huh.

My understanding is that we give less of our GNP than any other country, certinly far less than the Scandinavian countries. But maybe I've got this wrong...

Oh no - not the "Just throw more money at it and it will go away" fix.

I heard some politician speaking a little while back and when asked what % would be satisfactory for a tax rate, he replied "70"

Ya, let's all give 70% of our EARNED money away to the "needy." Sound slike a great place to live, maybe as good as Scandinavia.

[someguy]

Video games do NOT contribute to violence. I am proof. I like to play video games and have done so for most of my life. I have played games like doom and counter-strike and abunch of other games. I have yet to shoot anybody. Or whack anybody with a +3 broad sword or ay other thing like that.
Colombine did not happen because of Doom it happend cuz some kids got picked on to much and lashed out.

[rmcrobertson]

Mike, I was under the impression that you'd just claimed that the U.S. was, "more generous," than any other country. Guess I thought that a statement of the facts would be in order. Sorry.

[Makalakumu]

MM

All you do is spew the same thoughtless conservative rhetoric. Ever wonder what would happen if you unplugged? Would your mouth stop working and your mind freeze? Or would you see a different view of the world? Perhaps...

upnorthkyosa

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
MM

All you do is spew the same thoughtless conservative rhetoric. Ever wonder what would happen if you unplugged? Would your mouth stop working and your mind freeze? Or would you see a different view of the world? Perhaps...

upnorthkyosa

Actually, there is quite a bit of thought behind it. Someday you may earn to see it. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Jay Bell]

Guys...please keep it civil.

[hardheadjarhead]

it happend cuz some kids got picked on to much and lashed out.

Well, I got picked on. Badly. I had the wrong skin color and accent for where I lived. I haven't whacked anyone yet.

Others on this forum got picked on, and THEY haven't whacked anyone yet.

Those two kids at Columbine were CRAZY. They were psychopaths. The bad luck is that two kids like that got hooked up with each other, making double trouble. Picked on? Probably. Did it drive them over the edge? Probably not. My guess is that they would have killed someone eventually. They ENJOYED IT. And they killed kids that had treated them decently.



Ya, let's all give 70% of our EARNED money away to the "needy." Sound slike a great place to live, maybe as good as Scandinavia.

I heard Scandinavia is a nice place to live. I'm going there next Easter. I'll let you know.

As far as your slippery slope argument, it isn't worth addressing.

I'll keep this as civil as possible, Jay. I will attempt to keep it as civil as any one of the Presidential political candidates debating one another. Perhaps more so.

MM, as far as I've seen, you have yet to properly debate people on this forum. You fail to answer questions. You "snipe" by throwing out a shot, and then you disappear from threads. On the thread concerning gay marriages you were rude to Robert, evasive, and condescending. You never answered the challenges presented you.

It would appear that, contrary to your statement above, you've not put much thought into your posts or your political philosophy. I can respect a conservative viewpoint if its cogent and if the owner of the viewpoint will debate the issues with readiness and confidence. I have many well-read conservative friends who are well schooled in logic. Sadly, you don't meet their standards.

Honestly? I think you lack that intellectual confidence to engage in such debate. You post nothing of depth or substance and parrot a simplistic bumper sticker mentality party line that we've all heard before.

To be fair, if I heard a liberal or a libertarian, or a progressive (and I lean, politically, towards the latter two) argue as you've done, I'd put the same energy into countering them. It merits it.


Regards,


Steve

[OULobo]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Well, I got picked on. Badly. I had the wrong skin color and accent for where I lived. I haven't whacked anyone yet.

Others on this forum got picked on, and THEY haven't whacked anyone yet.

Those two kids at Columbine were CRAZY. They were psychopaths. The bad luck is that two kids like that got hooked up with each other, making double trouble. Picked on? Probably. Did it drive them over the edge? Probably not. My guess is that they would have killed someone eventually. They ENJOYED IT. And they killed kids that had treated them decently.


I know I will prolly get hit for "sniping" in a thread too, but I think while the two nutjobs in Columbine didn't do what they did only because of getting abused by classmates, I think that the abuse was a major factor in their decision to commit a national tragedy. Consequently, they did spare the kids they remembered as being kind to them. Many of the survivers related accounts of how one of the killers would find a cowering student and as he was going to murder the student, the other murderer would say "no, I remember her, she was cool to me, leave her. " The fact is that cliques, hazing and student-on-student abuse has gotten much worse as aggression and violence have become publicized and idolized in everyday society. I think a combination, of abuse, availability of weapons, aggressive disposition, alienation, lack of guidance and direction, and finally despair caused the Columbine massacre. Every one of these ingredients increased the likelyhood of a major violent event.

[someguy]

Well, I got picked on. Badly. I had the wrong skin color and accent for where I lived. I haven't whacked anyone yet.
They were Psyco I agree. They probably would have killed some one some day. Picking on them I think sent them over the edge early. I could be wrong and may well be aabout that though. Any way you look at it they didnt do it from just because of video games.

[theletch1]

I don't think there is any ONE reason that can be pointed to for anyone like the two at Columbine going over the edge. To point to any one thing is, IMO, irresponsible and dangerous. Most of us, at some point or another, have been picked on. I went through hell for years as a child because I have the biggest ears this side of Buckingham Palace. Eventually I learned that self depricating humor works great. It put others at ease, took the wind out of any snipe they may have (how much power does a potentially painful remark have if I've already shown that I am aware that I'm different and it doesn't bother me) and allowed folks to get to know me for me. Did I ever think about going ballistic? Sure, but I didn't act on it. I found other outlets and made damn sure that I didn't do to others what was done to me. By the time high school rolled around I was a fairly popular guy.

[OULobo]

Originally posted by theletch1
I found other outlets and made damn sure that I didn't do to others what was done to me. By the time high school rolled around I was a fairly popular guy.

So,. . . . . what happened? J/K ;)

[theletch1]

So,. . . . . what happened? A wife (o.k. I'm on my second wife) 5 kids and a more than full time job I just don't have time to work on my suave demeaner any more:wah:

[OULobo]

Originally posted by theletch1
A wife (o.k. I'm on my second wife) 5 kids and a more than full time job I just don't have time to work on my suave demeaner any more:wah:

Akk. . .don't tell me that. I'm recently engaged and its too early for second thoughts, or at least that's what my fiance' says. See that, she's already trying to think for me. :D

[someguy]

To point to any one thing on any thing and say its the reason is allways wrong. I am saying that the kids being picked on was a big factor.
As for being pppicked on I know that one myself. Man did I hate middle school. glad I am out of there and out of high school. I love college.
Man am I good at starting things that end up splitting conversations. I am so good I don't even have to try. At least this time I guess it has somebearing on the debate.

[hardheadjarhead]

I went through hell for years as a child because I have the biggest ears this side of Buckingham Palace.


HAH!

I'll tell my wife that. She's got a pretty good set on her. Ears, that is.


Steve

[theletch1]

She's got a pretty good set on her. Ears, that is. :rofl: That's a good one, Steve! There's a pic of me in the martial arts pix thread... see for your self.

Kids can be cruel, (and don't give me the "they're just kids so they don't know any better" line). As an elementary and even into middle school student the torment was enough for me to try to find reasons not to go to school. My parents were wise to the ploy and sent me in any way. As I said in my previous post I found other ways to deal with it besides violence. I played b.b. gun wars as a kid, hunted (so I had access to guns), watched John Wayne movies and lived in a family that was of the old fashioned "boys don't cry or show emotions so hold it in" mentality. I never resorted to violence to manifest my anger or hurt or whatever other emotion these kids are supposed to be getting out.

[Makalakumu]

Does anyone think that the huge increase in graphics and special effects in games, tv, and movies makes it harder for kids to distinguish the real from non-real?

If I were a kid, I would have a hard time.

upnorthkyosa

[theletch1]

Does anyone think that the huge increase in graphics and special effects in games, tv, and movies makes it harder for kids to distinguish the real from non-real? I have to believe that it's all relative as far as this goes. What we thought was "realism" growing up is now seen as cheap parlour tricks (Star Trek for instance) to todays kids and I'm sure that my grand kids (and it better be a long time before I have those) will look at the stuff my kids are growing up with and say something to the effect that the effects are silly looking. I believe that knowing that video games are just another type of media is what's important at the base level. No matter how "real" the graphics are as long as the child is taught that it is indeed "media" then the upgrades shouldn't make any more difference to them than to us when we were coming up.

[hardheadjarhead]

A thirteen year old gave me a copy of the game "Deus Ex" and the Playstation game "Devil May Cry". Very realistic...but not too realistic.

Realism may get to be so disgusting that children won't want anything to do with it. The boy who gave it to me is a good kid, very sensitive, very compassionate. Yet he enjoys the game...he KNOWS it isn't real when he blows the bad guys into fifty pieces.

Were the game to truly become blood and guts (and it may someday, with the growth of technology), I think he'd pass it up. His parents, certainly, would be the "Gatekeepers" as all parents ought to be...and they wouldn't let him play a game that was too extreme. They know their son, however...and such games aren't going to turn him evil.

By the way, I've almost beat the level where I'm at Level Two of the virus synthesis lab...and I haven't used ONE cheat code. Go me.


Steve

[Eldritch Knight]

Well, its not so much a question of whether the kid can differentiate real from unreal as it is mere conditioning. Virtual or not, the kid's subconscious is being trained to aim and shoot at human-shaped objects. There are recorded instances of totally untrained people being able to make amazingly accurate shots without even thinking about it (based totally on FPS-built instinct - kill everything that moves). Remember back to when you were REALLY young? Isn't it a bit difficult to sometimes sort out what you saw on TV and what actually happened? That's simply because a young child's mind registers EVERYTHING that it sees as reality. You can tell a 5 year old all you want that its not real, but that doesn't help their learning subconscious very much.

[Makalakumu]

Now, put some LSD in the water supply to "open" peoples minds, feed them violence and destroy their ability to designate the enemy, and mentally train them to kill so that when a gun is put in their hands they need very little training to use it....

Whew that is far out, I know, but can you see where the conspiracy theorists are getting thier information...

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Eldritch Knight
Well, its not so much a question of whether the kid can differentiate real from unreal as it is mere conditioning. Virtual or not, the kid's subconscious is being trained to aim and shoot at human-shaped objects. There are recorded instances of totally untrained people being able to make amazingly accurate shots without even thinking about it (based totally on FPS-built instinct - kill everything that moves). Remember back to when you were REALLY young? Isn't it a bit difficult to sometimes sort out what you saw on TV and what actually happened? That's simply because a young child's mind registers EVERYTHING that it sees as reality. You can tell a 5 year old all you want that its not real, but that doesn't help their learning subconscious very much.

Good Arguement point.

Question?

Since I played war as a child and had wood shaped like guns and used them in pointing at others to shoot them. I would have been influeneced by the iet NAm in TV and all the WWII movies on TV? THat I might have become a trained killer because of this?

May I take this a step further?

Since I was spanked by my parents and also in Elementary school (* Once, Never wanted that humiliation again *), I was abused, and therefore a prime target to abuse children in the future?

Since all of this occured in my childhood, it was all real?

I am not making fun here, I am following the thought, for furhter discussion.


I have another question, dos anyone remember doing someting as a child and knowing it was wrong? Yet they did it anyways? Because either you did not know the ramifications or punishment or believe in they would occur?

If A child gets into a fight and is told this is wrong, then they can learn this is wrong. If the continue to get into fights without punishment, which is why both parties would get detention or suspension in the old days, then there is no real deterent. No effect to the cause.

If the child is 'babied' and allowed to beld abstentia from any responsibility until the day of their 18th birthday by law, then you have not helped this child to become a positive member of society.

Now the horrible case of Columbine. Did these children, young adults ever show a violent revenge streak? Were they allowed to hold in there frustration until they broke and lots their temper or their control? I honestly do not know. If they were allowed to explode from time to time then they had a pattern set and that was approved by the adults in their life.

As A child myself, I was bullied. I was the quiet, silent type that did not like to hurt others at all. I would even cry when I would get into a fight before a real strike had happened. Why? Because I did not like hurting others, and I knew I would have to hurt someone now. To the point of one bully who constantly pushed me down and or tripped me or tackle me ad try to get my head to hit a bench or a poll or the ground. So, on one day, when I (Age 6) had lost it, I chased this guy down no matter how many of his friends got in my way or knocked me down. I kept going, i had lost it. It took four adults to pull my fingers from his throat as I was bashing is skull into the pavement. Now, you can imagine, that his parents and the school were upset. And they all wanted me expelled. Yet, all I had to say, was I kept telling the adults and nothing was done, so I has to stop him. He kept hitting my head so I hit his head. So he would know how it feels and would not do it again. Of course I was crying over the memory. The adults told those involved that I was crying the whole time I was chasing him and pounding his skull into the pavement. I did not get expelled, and neither did the bully. No one got into trouble at school. I did get into trouble at home. A few years later, I realized I could not go through life afraid my size would hurt others, so I learned a gentle touch and also learned that when others went passed the first round of physical assault without any response, I would reply hard to stop it. This stopped the situation from getting out of hand or to a point of someone getting seriously hurt. Then it became know not to go too far with me, because I could fight and hit, only choose not too.

Now I had to learn that loosing your control and temper was nto aceptable behavior in public. Even though I was the one picked on and many of the adults would take pity and not want to punish me, yet my parents continued with their hard fight of trying to make me a responsible person for society.

Now, I am not saying it is all the fault of any parent. As I said above I do nto know the complete history of those involved. Their are people and children that just do not understand right from wrong. There are children that will never learn. No matter, if the cause be chemical ( natural or induced ), or psychological, or what have you.

Sorry for the long rant.
:asian:

[Makalakumu]

Perhaps bullying is part of nature as social primates. As children we attempt to build the pecking order that is so common among our evolutionary cousins. Usually no one gets hurt hurt, but sometimes injuries happen. That is the name of the game in domination violence and we have all played our parts in this game.

Do we use guns and kill people when we participate? No. For kids who do not have a good grasp on social skills or reality, maybe. As with anything, most people are good, but a few are always going to be susseptible to violent influences. To say that games and movies CAUSE violent behaviors would require more of a direct correllation between the violence done and the violence viewed. In essence, it would have to happen more and more people would have to be involved.

I don't know if the blame can be laid at the parents or the game. I think that the problem lies with the kid and how they view what is going on in the game. If you look at school shooters you can see that they fall on a spectrum of borderline sociopath to full blown psychotic.

Kids can just be born this way and there is nothing we can do about that.

[hardheadjarhead]

Did the Columbine shooters know right from wrong? Yes. Did they know they would cause pain and suffering beyond the level they suffered...no doubt.

That is what it essentially boils down to...personal responsibility. Sociopathic/psychopathic individuals KNOW the difference between right and wrong. They understand the penalties. They just don't care.


(note how I won't honor their memory by using their names?)



Steve

[OULobo]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Did the Columbine shooters know right from wrong? Yes. Did they know they would cause pain and suffering beyond the level they suffered...no doubt.

That is what it essentially boils down to...personal responsibility. Sociopathic/psychopathic individuals KNOW the difference between right and wrong. They understand the penalties. They just don't care.

(note how I won't honor their memory by using their names?)

Steve

I agree totally. This was a personal decision with recognition of the consequences to themselves and price paid by the victims and their families. However it does illustrate the despiration that must have been in their minds to drive them to this point. Too many things in their lives went bad and all the hurt from that humiliation, regression, repression, aggression, ignorance and angst focused on the thing they probly delt with on the most frequent level, social ridicule in school daily.



Originally posted by Eldritch Knight
Well, its not so much a question of whether the kid can differentiate real from unreal as it is mere conditioning. Virtual or not, the kid's subconscious is being trained to aim and shoot at human-shaped objects. There are recorded instances of totally untrained people being able to make amazingly accurate shots without even thinking about it (based totally on FPS-built instinct - kill everything that moves). Remember back to when you were REALLY young? Isn't it a bit difficult to sometimes sort out what you saw on TV and what actually happened? That's simply because a young child's mind registers EVERYTHING that it sees as reality. You can tell a 5 year old all you want that its not real, but that doesn't help their learning subconscious very much.

This is an response that is detached from emotion and moral choice of action. Giving someone the ability to do something does not mean they will choose to use it or in what capacity. I would guess many people in this forum are quite efficient in their capability of caueing harm, but most choose to only apply this ability responsibly. There are many cultures around the world that teach combat skills in childhood and formative years, but aren't inherently aggressive or warlike.

[hardheadjarhead]

However it does illustrate the despiration that must have been in their minds to drive them to this point. Too many things in their lives went bad and all the hurt from that humiliation, regression, repression, aggression, ignorance and angst focused on the thing they probly delt with on the most frequent level, social ridicule in school daily.


Sorry, I can't accept that. While it certainly is a cause for many ills, "social ridicule" doesn't mitigate homicide (I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but it could be taken that way).

Many of us suffered social ridicule, harrassment, beatings...and we rose above it.

The mere suggestion of them being a product of their environment robs every disadvantaged person of the dignity of rising above their circumstances. I myself said earlier that multiple stresses lead to this sort of thing. I'm not sure either of them went through that sort of stress.

Some kids are born psychopaths. I think these two were.

Steve

[OULobo]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Sorry, I can't accept that. While it certainly is a cause for many ills, "social ridicule" doesn't mitigate homicide (I'm not saying you're suggesting that, but it could be taken that way).

Many of us suffered social ridicule, harrassment, beatings...and we rose above it.

The mere suggestion of them being a product of their environment robs every disadvantaged person of the dignity of rising above their circumstances. I myself said earlier that multiple stresses lead to this sort of thing. I'm not sure either of them went through that sort of stress.

Some kids are born psychopaths. I think these two were.

Steve

I'm not one to believe in "born sociopaths", but I do agree with the multiple stresses idea, not just the stresses found in school, although those may be the most frequent, and therefor the focus of the attackers. That is what I was trying to say in my earlier post. I also can't abide by the comparison of anyother generation. The whole time that adults are complaining about how kids have it so easy, I think the kids are experiencing it getting worse and worse. I don't think adults understand how much the intensity of the experiences of youth has evolved. Things have become harsher, more brutal, more unforgiving, more confused and it has become impossible for adults to understand, because they see school as never changing from when they were there. Environment's not just about lifestyle, it has a temporal factor to take into consideration. The problem is that temporal circumstances cannot be accounted for because they can never be experienced again. We can't go back in time.

Just like war. Sure combat has a lot of similarities, but was combat in in WWII Europe like combat in Vietnam or in Iraq now. No, and not just because of terrain or technology, but because of the different morals, attitudes, social constructs of the time. Just like cops and robbers (good vs. bad), is different from Cowboys and Indians (not so good vs. not so bad) or Blood vs. Crips (pretty bad vs. pretty bad).

[hardheadjarhead]

My personal outlook on life reflects a reluctance to accept what I call "The Chicken Little Syndrome", wherein people say that our lives are worse than ever, that morality is waning, that crime is on the rise, civilization is on the decline, etc. It is an argument embraced by both ends of the political spectrum, and one held by people for the last 100 years at least. It may be a perennial attitude, and persistant.

The stresses on children today may or may not be worse than days past. As you've said, OULobo, we can not accurately compare generations. Still, I'm hesitant to say that kids have it worse insofar as stresses go. I hear this quite often, though, so you clearly have company. Many concur with you.

As I type this, I'm watching CNN interview the Greg Easterbrook, author of "The Progress Paradox", who writes that people are no happier than they were in the 1950's, in spite of an incredible increase in material wealth. Yet the studies he references apparently don't indicate that we're any unhappier, either. It might be worth the read for both of us...perhaps it'll give us some insights into where our culture is.


Steve

[OULobo]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
My personal outlook on life reflects a reluctance to accept what I call "The Chicken Little Syndrome", wherein people say that our lives are worse than ever, that morality is waning, that crime is on the rise, civilization is on the decline, etc. It is an argument embraced by both ends of the political spectrum, and one held by people for the last 100 years at least. It may be a perennial attitude, and persistant.

The stresses on children today may or may not be worse than days past. As you've said, OULobo, we can not accurately compare generations. Still, I'm hesitant to say that kids have it worse insofar as stresses go. I hear this quite often, though, so you clearly have company. Many concur with you.

As I type this, I'm watching CNN interview the Greg Easterbrook, author of "The Progress Paradox", who writes that people are no happier than they were in the 1950's, in spite of an incredible increase in material wealth. Yet the studies he references apparently don't indicate that we're any unhappier, either. It might be worth the read for both of us...perhaps it'll give us some insights into where our culture is.


Steve

True 'nuff

[DeLamar.J]

http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Violence.htm



Read and learn.

[hardheadjarhead]

Thanks for the article!

I'll have to look for the Professor Jenkins listed in it. I'd be interested in his work.

Steve

[rmcrobertson]

The anomie of the landscape of contemporary capitalism, into which all sorts of ugliness can flow.

Have you ever seen the beginning of, "The Deer Hunter?" As one of my teachers pointed out, what's extraordinary is the violence of their lives, lond before Vietnam is even mentioned...DeNiro shooting that deer is actually the LEAST violent thing in that movie...

Sexual repression, adult hypocrisy, the disappearance of the master-myths that gave life meaning when I was a kid, urbanization, the utter ridiculousness of high school...video games are the problem? If so, ONLY because they are an escape from the contemporary--and where we escaped into books and fishing and walking and games and idle daydreams, now the unhappy kids escape into the motiveless violence of video games...which we have got to sell, or a whole industry might collapse...

Sheesh. It's a wonder there aren't MORE Columbines...and the fact that there aren't is a tribute to the essential sanity of children...makes me suspect that we should be putting a hell of a lot of more effort into teaching them martial arts, and, for all the complaining we do about kidds "diluting," the arts, making the teaching stick...

Or, we could vote to raise our taxes so that their libraries and sports fields would be open on Sundays, and there'd be good adults on hand to talk to...

Video games. Love that alibi.

[someguy]

Heres one thats kind of scary http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/fun.games/03/16/boy.videogame.reut/index.html
So I guess in one case it did but I'm SURE there must have been something really wrong there.
I know this topics kind of dead but bah to that.