I feel it is important to the debate. If not for the games being there, these other factors would be pushing kids into other outlets for
So .. what is it that you are actually saying here? If not for video games, these same kids would be doing drugs or something worse, so instead of
determining whether or not the video games directly
have any negative impact, we have to measure them against what the kids might be doing if
there weren’t video games? The same brand of “logic” says let children chew snuff and smoke cigarettes because if you don’t they’ll do
something worse like huffing dangerous chemicals or using illegal drugs. A functional family and good parenting should prevent a child from being
“pushed” into doing any of the above, but regardless, it’s not the topic at hand. Under discussion are the consequences of kids playing the
games, not the possible consequences of what they’d be doing if they weren’t playing the games.
this study which argues for the child's preexisting conditions which lead to them playing the game
Shall we then also hold alcohol blameless for brain and liver damage because pre-existing conditions and other factors drove people to drink it?
Shall we refund all the settlements paid out by diet drugs because people wouldn’t have taken them if they hadn’t had the pre-existing condition
of obesity? What led to them playing the game
is not the topic nor the issue, and for that reason I will not address it any further.
However, if it's a study done by a University you desire news.illinois.edu...
From your link:
some violent games do not necessarily lead to increased real-world aggression. But he and Skoric concede that other types of
games and contexts might have negative impacts.
And here we are again at “some violent games don’t lead to real-world aggression,” i. e. violent video games don’t turn teenagers into
criminals. Why do you keep on presenting evidence for the one (minor) point you’ve already won? The negative impacts of video games, as we are
seeing, are many and varied. Real-world aggression and criminal behavior may
be the ultimate adverse outcome – as implied by the word
“some” in the quote above – but as the top end of the Bell curve of outcomes, it would be seen in only a tiny percentage of cases.
Then we have your
experts admitting that “other types of games and contexts might have negative impacts.” Yes, thank you, we’d noticed
… most minors playing these games are at least 13. By then they should either know the basics of how to handle a firearm or know well enough
to stay away.
being the operative word in that sentence. But if most minors knew what they should
know, we probably wouldn’t be having this
debate. Parents who haven’t bothered to control the time their child spends playing violent “M” rated video games probably haven’t educated
them on gun safety, either.
Sure, it's healthier and its good to be active, but the same could be said of kids who do nothing but sit in there room and study.
I know of children who play video games while riding in a car, eating, or going to the bathroom, who refuse to attend a party or event because
they’d rather play their game, refuse to eat because they’d have to leave their game to go to the dinner table, miss sleep over video games, and
cut school in order to go back home and play video games. How many children do you really think there are who exhibit that kind of obsessive behavior
If there weren’t video games to play, what would these kids realistically
be doing? Let’s see .. there was TV when I was a kid, but no
video games. I played outside, went for walks, caught some crawdads and tadpoles, chased fireflies, built a hideaway “fort” in the woods, read
books, rode my bicycle, went to the zoo, went swimming, and watched some television. Yep, that sounds much worse than playing violent and/or sexual
video games. Doesn’t it?
Are these teenagers going out and doing these things because of the game, or are they simply attracted to that particular genre because it
represents part of what they do?
In the article, they state quite clearly what they mean:
the games made teens think they were invincible … Video games can have a negative impact on young drivers because it increases their
complacency and their indulgence in risk-taking behaviour
I think that the officials and experts are being quite specific in stating that they believe the video games are causing
Notice, the child psychologist admitted she never played the game.
And this is relevant how? A person doesn’t have to actually watch an XXX rated movie to know they don’t want their kids watching it. That’s the
point of the ratings system, isn’t it? I can read the content associated with the rating (violence, blood and gore, sexual content) and decide that
it’s not appropriate for a child without having to play it myself.
Also, I would also like to note once again, the average age of a gamer now is in their mid to late 20s, and many older than that as well. So
yes, some people's dads are playing Mass Effect.
Okay. And are you claiming that this is somehow a good thing? What activities are these 20 year olds giving up in order to continue their teenage
addiction to video games? Are they not going to college, or are they once again playing video games when they should be studying? Are young dads
playing video games instead of playing with their kids or interacting with their wives? Are they having tardiness problems at work due to staying up
all night playing video games? In my opinion, this not only supports the idea that video games have a negative impact on minors, but implies that the
negative impact continues well into adulthood and may be a permanent or very long term effect!
Let us now delve a little further into my 3rd reference from the previous post, which you did not (could not?) respond to.
Video Game Study Reinforces Negative Impact on Youth
Brady and Matthews offer what they consider proof positive that violent video games negatively affect a players' blood pressure and lead to
uncooperative behavior, permissive attitudes toward violence, alcohol and marijuana use, sexual activity without condom use and hostile social
I don’t know about you, but I would definitely call that set of effects a “negative impact.” Some of those attitudes and activities could lead
to poor health and, taken to the extreme, even death.
As was also stated in the video you linked us too, we know that exposure to "virtual" violence is desensitizing, as is exposure to sexual conduct
and sexuality. Most parents wouldn't let their 13 or 14 year olds see "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Debbie Does Dallas," whether or not
they've seen the movies themselves. It makes no sense that we, collectively as a society, understand and agree that violent and adult themed movies,
and even magazines like "Playboy," should be kept from minors, but we don't seem to understand that these "M" video games contain the very same
types of objectionable content and that they, too, should be kept from minors for the very same reasons!
Although youth growing up in violent homes and communities may become more physiologically aroused by media violence exposure, all youth appear
to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes, according to the researchers.
How much more clearly can it be said? ALL
youth appear to be at risk for potentially negative outcomes . Not just the ones who don’t
have good parents. Not just the ones with hypothetical pre-existing conditions. ALL youth.