Violent Games and Risky Behaviours

Remove all ads!

There's a health news article at Reuters, looking into the link between playing violent games and risky behaviours such as smoking marijuana or drinking alcohol, as well as good old aggression. Here's a snip:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - After playing a violent video game, young men are more likely to think it's OK to smoke marijuana and drink alcohol, raising the possibility that exposure to violent media could negatively affect health-related behavior.

"Parents have been told the message that violent video games and violent media in general can influence the likelihood that their kids will be aggressive," Dr. Sonya S. Brady, now at the University of California, San Francisco, told Reuters Health. "What this study suggests is that they might increase any type of risk-taking behavior."

Brady and her colleague Dr. Karen A. Matthews at the University of Pittsburgh also found that young men were more likely to see others' attitudes toward them as hostile if they had just played a violent game.

"You're kind of on the lookout for other people being rude to you," Brady said.

Wonder what defenders of the right to sell adult products to kids are going to say, though...

Read the rest at Reuters.

 

It's just like all of the other articles people publish. If you see it in a game and you're stupid enough to do it in real life then you're a god damn idiot. Don't you DARE blame anyone else for it. It's a game, it aint real life. The sooner all the little pathetic groups of 'concerned parents, students and reviewers' get that through their thick skulls the better off we'll all be. It's a game, you can have as much violence, sex, alcohol and drugs in it as you want.

 

No you can't.

You banned porn. from kids. Porns are just "games" after all.

 

Seems they didn't. Take a game like GTA. You kill people. You rob people. You have sex with people. You take drugs. You do illegal things. How many people do you see commiting a crime and then blaming it on that??? Btw if someone did I would laugh ... especially if they got a larger sentence.

 

ok, how about this.

human is different from animal in that human lost basic instinct and rely absolutely on learnt behaviours to survive. Humans don't know things naturally, human need to acquire skills. So, human invested a lot in teaching and learning.

Evolutionally speaking, the human who are best suited for learning, who get most out of learning experience, who easiest accumulate behavioural patterns from outside stimuli are the best human and their genes should survive best. For example, here are two cave-teen. First caveteen learns how to hunt, all the skills, by watching his caveman father hunt once. Second cave-teen cannot acquire this essential skill even watching both caveteen A and caveman hunting. First caveteen who are fast to learn, easiest to influene by outside stimuli survive as well as reproduce and the second who cannot hunt, dies.

Thus easier to be influence unconciously is not a "screw up". Its what makes accumulated knowledges, i.e. culture, able to be passed on by generations to generations.

 

Based on this Mature and Adult games should not be sold to underage boys and girls.

Parents need to pay attention to what their kids are doing.

 

I am yet to go out and smoke pot, drink, etc. - let alone after playing violent video games. Therefore - how does this apply to me? But hey, I suppose discrimination in the guise of saving the children is all fine and good...

What would be nice to see is a study on the same subject matter for adults - it's hardly fair to draw the conclusion that just young people are being affected by violent video games when it could be all age groups. Not that it would change my opinion on the matter - whatever the outcome. A balanced view would be good to see, is all.

 

Discrimination of what, against what? In my eyes, the basic problem is developers and publishers drawing upon people's lowest instincts for cold hard cash and then cowing from any responsibility when people are affected by it. It's like cigarette concerns saying you have free will and can choose not to smoke after launching an ad campaign in your face. The other problem is dodging ratings or even outright targetting at minors material which is deemed adult or mature or otherwise inappropriate for people under a certain age.

 

Discrimination against minors - which clearly you don't percieve it as such - but as one, I do. Restricting certain things from certain groups of people (especially with dodgy reasoning such as this) - that's discrimination.

I don't give a damn whether publishers and developers are trying to pry out my cash through screwy content - and as it's my cash, what's it to you? If I wanted to play such games - again, what's it to you? If I was weak enough to fall for an advertising campaign - what's it to you? It's my life - and yes, I do have the free will to resist or not - as does everyone, regardless of advertising or whathaveyou. They're not brainwashing us ffs. The choice is still there, and is visible to all but those who really I'm not too inclined to protect anyway.

If they can dodge ratings, I applaud them - I hate ratings (or at least the current rating system). If they want to target minors with material which others consider inappropriate - I don't care. It's the minor's decision to play that game - and if they find enjoyment from it - good on them.

 

Oh crap

The systems for determining this are abysmal anyway. Case and point: British pornography laws.

The British teenager can have sex from the age of 16, but cannot buy porn til he is 18.

What the hell? Is he supposed to keep his eyes closed during intercourse?

Anyway, why censor it? How is the sight of a pair of boobs going to have a detrimental effect on a teenager?

Okay, it removes all higher brain functions for a few seconds, but still.

I thank you for your applause. Now I'm going to watch an 18 rated movie. Doom, I think.

 

There's a difference between nudity and pornography and there's also an obvious difference between having an intercourse (preferably lawful intercourse ) and viewing sexual images disconnected from any sense of love, commitment or unity. Plus, age of consent being 16 doesn't mean minors under 16 are prohibited from having sex with each other or with you; it means you can't have sex with them. So there is an essential difference here.

In a biology coursebook most likely not. In an art musem most likely neither. In a pornographic context, especially connected with violence, crime, exploitation, drugs or cheap, quick and easy sex, likely yes.

Sorry to break it to you but minors are under the custody of their parents and, indirectly, the whole of society. There is no such thing as the minor's own decision comparable to that of an adult.

 

Don;t you think that's a bit of a generalisation? Not all porn is necessarily stepped in this kind of thing. I'm sure Page 3 of The Sun, with it's picture of some nice young lady with her boobies out is pretty crime-free.

Besides, if everything was perfectly regulated as so many people seem to feel is necessary, can you imagine the shock when someone hits 18 (or 21, if they're in some parts of America *shudders*) and they find out what the world is REALLY like?

Still, it would lead to payrises for therapists and psychiatrists.


EDIT:

Yeah, but teenagers can (at least, I can_ differentiate between love and lust. Sure, sometimes you get horny, but other times you want love, not gratification. While I acknowledge that the two things are not mutually exclusive, they can exist seperately.

I can feel the difference between seeing SOphie Howard's boobs and thinking 'Hell yes, I'd do her', and seeing two people in love and thinking 'I wish I had someone like that'.

It just boils down to your preferences and moods, really. Sometimes you want gratification, other times you just want a cuddle.

Strangely enough, I'd prefer the cuddle, and amongst my friends I'm the only one who would get married tomorrow if I found the right girl. It's not my fault, I'm a Hopeless Romantic.

But, of course, this is off-topic

[ April 10, 2006, 19:04: Message edited by: Daie d'Malkin ]

 

hear hear

 

No ****. That's what I disagree with, and that's what I'm calling discrimination.

 

It's crime-free but it gives the idea that it's good for a nice young lady to have boobies out. That is not the kind of impression that I want my children to develop and I'm not so far, myself, from the age when such impressions could form from sheer exposure. There's a politico-economico-social newspaper here called "Fakt" ("Fact"), which has a lot of topless pictures in Spring to Autumn and whenever it writes about a beach or a holiday resort or sunbathing, the women are topless. However, in my whole life, I've only seen one or two topless women on the beach in this country, of whom one actually had her nipples covered. So imagine what kind of disinformation newspapers and magazines can produce. If you read that newspaper, especially daily, while learning my language for instance, you would be surprised to find out that girls here are not just waiting to jump out of their bras.

And no, I'm not offended by a pair of breasts. My father was an artist with a huge interest in art history. I've seen more of it in art than some people have in porn. It would be strange for me to be bothered. And frankly I don't really care. I would probably defend your calendar if the photos were artistic somewhat. But I have a problem with the kind of message nudity in games sends because it's invariably sexual and not just a little. Even if it's not full nudity, it's still more sexual than a whole gallery of nude art. Think the NWN (was it HotU or SoU, I don't remember) nymph with gigantic gazongas and two tiny shells on nipples. And I really think breasts on a real woman don't jiggle so much as they did on the Valsharess. Actually, I wonder if the jiggling animation didn't play when she was supposed to stand still. That's the kind of thing young boys' imagination feeds on.

Yes, that's a valid concern. But it's not like someone doesn't see the real world around him until he turns 18 or 21. And it's not like pornography or meaty FPS kind of violence is real life. One of the biggest issues with each is that it's not. Pornography gives a false image of women, of men as well, let alone of family and living together. Violent games teach that there's a constant persistent danger and everyone is potentially out to get you, while it's OK for you to take extreme measures. Gitmo-style. Gitmo is a part of real life, you could argue, but I could argue it's where it leads when people have a fascination with violence and an illusion of impunity. Abu-Ghraib as well.

So what you mention is more of a question of parents keeping the child in the house and blocking it from contact with external world than censoring violence or pornography. To digress a little, one of the worst things parents could do is telling the child to close its eyes when watching a film together. Or telling the kid to leave until called back. It gives the impression watching sex and violence scenes are one of the marks of being adult. Like cigarettes or alcohol for some people. If parents want to show their children it's wrong, they should give an example themselves. This means rewinding some scenes when watching something with children and this means dad's girls under the bed should take a walk as well. What point telling your son off for his porn when he's already found where yours is? The problem with porn is not that it's wrong until you're 18 but it's wrong in general, of its own, for starters.

And that's the problem which porn reinforces. Kids stop thinking a boy and a girl are meant to love each other; they start thinking they are meant to hump each other. No holding hands, kissing or other sissy stuff. That's for kids. Adult, mature highschoolers hump. All right, all right, that's the image from stupid films and soap operas, but it's not so far removed from reality as one would like it to be. Look at those kids desperately trying to lose virginity as soon as possible, no matter with whom, so they can brag. Not saying it never was there before but porn reinforces that culture.

I have a huge problem with the concept of "doing" someone who is a human person with human dignity and human rights, as good as you or any other person, and definitely not an item. That's something porn blurs and dilates, reducing people to (sometimes willing) objects of other people's satisfaction. The liberal, capitalist response that they do what they want and get paid for it, so everything is right doesn't cut it.

That's called custody. Voting rights for toddlers, anyone?

 

I'm so glad to be lumped in the same catagory as toddlers.

What you call it doesn't change what it is - and I don't appreciate your efforts at marginalising me and other minors who can and do hold an opinion. Passing the age of 18 doesn't mystically make your opinion any more valid except in the eyes of the law - which makes the law bull****.

 

Of course you aren't in the same category as toddlers. I'm not even saying you're less able to vote rationally or conduct some other affairs of yours ably than the average 18 year old person. However, the law being bull**** for putting offspring under the care of parents under a certain age is far from bull**** other than perhaps your opinion. The attitude you're showing is actually an argument in favour of at least thinking long before doing anything about the limit. If not 18, then what do you propose? 15? 16? What about people who are younger than that but display the desirable characterists of that age? Or maybe individual, thorough and repeated examination of anyone between 14 and 18 (or more?) years of age in order to determine the extent of civil maturity? You know it won't work. Show me a different argument from just saying it's bull**** and discrimination or indeed, it will be the same logic you could drag on and on until toddlers would be allowed to vote (i.e. simply negating the concept of custody).

 

The solution is simple - have the government put some research into when children form a political opinion and legalise it from that age - rather than from the arbitrary age they've imposed now. Those children younger than this who have formed an opinion (no doubt quite rare) could apply to be able to vote - or whatever. Simply - some solution that is not arbitrary discrimination is needed (not that scientific discrimination is an especially good thing, but it beats what we have now)

On the other hand - I'm also wondering why not give toddlers the right to vote? They can't use it because they don't have a political opinion...

(btw, we're off-topic )