In Defence of Banning Video and Computer Games

[Mkuki]

Here's one article from Time on this subject.

Huh, cool beans. So, because the Establishment disagrees, it automatically discredits the whole argument?

You're free to actually challenge the evidence. And what do you mean the establishment agrees? Establishment media loves to connect video games with violence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-yee/ ... 72231.html

If you disagree with the evidence provided then why don't you provide evidence to the contrary?

[Ovisterra]

I'm really not sure what the "Establishment" you're referring to is, but if they classified it as a psychological disorder, then they probably didn't use proper, scientific methods. I don't understand why you asked for sources if you intended to shun them as propaganda promoted by the "Establishment".

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that at one time, Homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the "Establishment" (The APA) and it wasn't removed until 1973. Who is to say that 20, or 30 years from now, they won't find a definitive link between violence/aggressive behavior and violent video games?

You know the article posted is challenging something the APA said, right? Look, if you're going to make ridiculous claims without any sources, that's great for you and I won't stop you, but at least be polite enough to read sources other people post so you don't end up doing this.

[Estruia]

Huh, cool beans. So, because the Establishment disagrees, it automatically discredits the whole argument?

No, when reality disagrees it automatically discredits the whole argument. Implying some kind of deception or dishonesty by "the Establishment"(Seriously? Are you 70 or something?) doesn't exactly strengthen an argument either.

When did I imply deception? I'm merely pointing out that studies done in the past, have been discredited in the present. Who is to say that won't happen further down the line when we know even more?

[Ovisterra]

No, when reality disagrees it automatically discredits the whole argument. Implying some kind of deception or dishonesty by "the Establishment"(Seriously? Are you 70 or something?) doesn't exactly strengthen an argument either.

When did I imply deception? I'm merely pointing out that studies done in the past, have been discredited in the present. Who is to say that won't happen further down the line when we know even more?

So really we can trust nothing and all human knowledge is meaningless.

[Estruia]

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that at one time, Homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the "Establishment" (The APA) and it wasn't removed until 1973. Who is to say that 20, or 30 years from now, they won't find a definitive link between violence/aggressive behavior and violent video games?

You know the article posted is challenging something the APA said, right? Look, if you're going to make ridiculous claims without any sources, that's great for you and I won't stop you, but at least be polite enough to read sources other people post so you don't end up doing this.

I skimmed the article. That's about it.

As I previously stated, I don't actually support banning video games.

[Estruia]

When did I imply deception? I'm merely pointing out that studies done in the past, have been discredited in the present. Who is to say that won't happen further down the line when we know even more?

So really we can trust nothing and all human knowledge is meaningless.

Quite right. That's exactly what I'm saying. *Eyeroll*

I'm saying that it has happened before. Where studies that have been done, were proven wrong later on down the road. Who is to say it won't happen again?

[Ovisterra]

You know the article posted is challenging something the APA said, right? Look, if you're going to make ridiculous claims without any sources, that's great for you and I won't stop you, but at least be polite enough to read sources other people post so you don't end up doing this.

I skimmed the article. That's about it.

And look where it got you.

As I previously stated, I don't actually support banning video games.

So what the fuck is the motivation for sitting here and denying things without offering any actual counters? I don't mean that in a particularly aggressive way, I just honestly can't figure out why you would want to do that.

[Ovisterra]

So really we can trust nothing and all human knowledge is meaningless.

Quite right. That's exactly what I'm saying. *Eyeroll*

Pretty much. You seem to be saying that even when a bunch of peer-reviewed, apparently scientifically-accurate studies point to something, we can't draw even the smallest conclusion because "they might be wrong".

[Estruia]

I skimmed the article. That's about it.

And look where it got you.

As I previously stated, I don't actually support banning video games.

So what the fuck is the motivation for sitting here and denying things without offering any actual counters? I don't mean that in a particularly aggressive way, I just honestly can't figure out why you would want to do that.

It's a good time killer.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

You know somethings bullshit when even your grand mother says there's nothing with games, and I'm talking like, a grand mother here :|

[Ovisterra]

And look where it got you.



So what the fuck is the motivation for sitting here and denying things without offering any actual counters? I don't mean that in a particularly aggressive way, I just honestly can't figure out why you would want to do that.

It's a good time killer.

Words fail me.

[Sevvania]

No, when reality disagrees it automatically discredits the whole argument. Implying some kind of deception or dishonesty by "the Establishment"(Seriously? Are you 70 or something?) doesn't exactly strengthen an argument either.

When did I imply deception? I'm merely pointing out that studies done in the past, have been discredited in the present. Who is to say that won't happen further down the line when we know even more?

Why ban something now on the chance that it might prove harmful twenty years from now? If studies do make a 180-degree turn in the next couple of decades and reveal that video games breed sociopathic murder machines, then yeah, we could look into banning them at that point, because we should have science and research that proved there were significant negative side effects to gaming. But it's just as likely that future studies won't find anything that reveals any significant negative side effects, in which case a pre-emptive ban now would prove pointless and silly.

Just because some studies have been proven wrong years down the road, there are innumerable other studies that pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[New Zreuche]

Quite right. That's exactly what I'm saying. *Eyeroll*

Pretty much. You seem to be saying that even when a bunch of peer-reviewed, apparently scientifically-accurate studies point to something, we can't draw even the smallest conclusion because "they might be wrong".

I feel you are rather twisting what he's saying to some extent, though I do agree with you

[Estruia]

Quite right. That's exactly what I'm saying. *Eyeroll*

Pretty much. You seem to be saying that even when a bunch of peer-reviewed, apparently scientifically-accurate studies point to something, we can't draw even the smallest conclusion because "they might be wrong".

What's so wrong with being reserved with my judgement? Eh? Some psychologists say it's true, so I automatically have to agree wholeheartedly? I can't have even the tiniest bit of doubt?

[Ovisterra]

Pretty much. You seem to be saying that even when a bunch of peer-reviewed, apparently scientifically-accurate studies point to something, we can't draw even the smallest conclusion because "they might be wrong".

I feel you are rather twisting what he's saying to some extent, though I do agree with you

I don't think I am (though admittedly on the topic of the quality of my own discourse, I'm hardly a non-biased authority). I think that's exactly what he's doing.

[Estruia]

It's a good time killer.

Words fail me.

You've never argued for the sake of arguing? I honestly don't care which way this whole situation goes. I just have some time to kill before work.

[Ovisterra]

Pretty much. You seem to be saying that even when a bunch of peer-reviewed, apparently scientifically-accurate studies point to something, we can't draw even the smallest conclusion because "they might be wrong".

What's so wrong with being reserved with my judgement? Eh? Some psychologists say it's true, so I automatically have to agree wholeheartedly? I can't have even the tiniest bit of doubt?

Of course you can have doubt. You can have loads of doubt. Doubt is good. Scepticism is great. It's what drives science. But you're not just having doubt, you're full on discounting studies and refusing to accept them as any kind of evidence just because we can't know for certain that they are 100% accurate.

[Corrian]

*Just laughs at the entire thread*

[Ovisterra]

Words fail me.

You've never argued for the sake of arguing? I honestly don't care which way this whole situation goes. I just have some time to kill before work.

Of course I've argued for the sake of arguing. That's why I'm here too. But I rarely argue positions I don't hold, and when I do, I try to do more than just denying what people say, offering little in return.

[Mkuki]

So really we can trust nothing and all human knowledge is meaningless.

Quite right. That's exactly what I'm saying. *Eyeroll*

I'm saying that it has happened before. Where studies that have been done, were proven wrong later on down the road. Who is to say it won't happen again?

Except the difference between the 1970s and now is that scientific research is much more accurate these days. Back in the 1970s the brain wasn't understood at all. Since the 1990s, however, knowledge of the brain and its functions and what effects the brain has increased dramatically. This increase in knowledge of about the brain makes modern studies much more reliable than any studies made during the 1970s.

Second of all, just because there is a possibility of contemporary studies being wrong in the future doesn't mean you should just ignore the evidence provided right now. It's ignorant to do so. And if you believe that the results of modern studies are wrong then you should set up your own studies and see if you can achieve different results. Otherwise, there is no rational reason to reject the evidence available at this moment.

[New Zreuche]

What's so wrong with being reserved with my judgement? Eh? Some psychologists say it's true, so I automatically have to agree wholeheartedly? I can't have even the tiniest bit of doubt?

Of course you can have doubt. You can have loads of doubt. Doubt is good. Scepticism is great. It's what drives science. But you're not just having doubt, you're full on discounting studies and refusing to accept them as any kind of evidence just because we can't know for certain that they are 100% accurate.

Which is technically a good thing, and he's not completely throwing the study out the window, he's just saying there is some doubt, as with everything

[Estruia]

What's so wrong with being reserved with my judgement? Eh? Some psychologists say it's true, so I automatically have to agree wholeheartedly? I can't have even the tiniest bit of doubt?

Of course you can have doubt. You can have loads of doubt. Doubt is good. Scepticism is great. It's what drives science. But you're not just having doubt, you're full on discounting studies and refusing to accept them as any kind of evidence just because we can't know for certain that they are 100% accurate.

So, couldn't the same be said for the studies done that did show a link between violent video games, and aggressive behavior? We're not certain that they're 100% accurate, but I don't see anyone here bringing them up as any sort of evidence in support of Czechie's argument.

[Ifreann]

Also, riddle me this Batman:

If violent video games cause violence, how come nobody tries to run for office based on their ability in Sim City?

Because violent video games causing violence wouldn't mean that Sim City causes a desire to be a civil servant, obviously.

How come "took Norwich City FC to back-to-back Premier League championships in Football Manager" isn't a credential that gets someone an actual management job?

Because it doesn't really demonstrate any great ability as a manager.

How come this is nothing more than the very same argument used against every form of mass media known to man, all the way back to Gutenberg, and it's never actually been proven to be even plausible by any kind of credible case study?

Because you're intentionally taking it that way.

Also, was Jack The Ripper inspired by a video game? If so, which one? Show your work.

Was Charles Manson inspired by the same thing as Jack The Ripper? Show your work.

---

I'm really not sure what the "Establishment" you're referring to is, but if they classified it as a psychological disorder, then they probably didn't use proper, scientific methods. I don't understand why you asked for sources if you intended to shun them as propaganda promoted by the "Establishment".

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that at one time, Homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the "Establishment" (The APA) and it wasn't removed until 1973. Who is to say that 20, or 30 years from now, they won't find a definitive link between violence/aggressive behavior and violent video games?

That would be all the research being done on the subject now.

---

No, when reality disagrees it automatically discredits the whole argument. Implying some kind of deception or dishonesty by "the Establishment"(Seriously? Are you 70 or something?) doesn't exactly strengthen an argument either.

When did I imply deception?

It comes from talking about "the Establishment". Makes it seem like you're saying that some vague group in authority is suppressing the truth or some other such 60s anti-establishment rhetoric.

---

You know somethings bullshit when even your grand mother says there's nothing with games, and I'm talking like, a grand mother here :|

I'm afraid I can't really give any special consideration to your grandmother's opinion.

[Estruia]

Quite right. That's exactly what I'm saying. *Eyeroll*

I'm saying that it has happened before. Where studies that have been done, were proven wrong later on down the road. Who is to say it won't happen again?

Except the difference between the 1970s and now is that scientific research is much more accurate these days. Back in the 1970s the brain wasn't understood at all. Since the 1990s, however, knowledge of the brain and its functions and what effects the brain has increased dramatically. This increase in knowledge of about the brain makes modern studies much more reliable than any studies made during the 1970s.

Second of all, just because there is a possibility of contemporary studies being wrong in the future doesn't mean you should just ignore the evidence provided right now. It's ignorant to do so. And if you believe that the results of modern studies are wrong then you should set up your own studies and see if you can achieve different results. Otherwise, there is no rational reason to reject the evidence available at this moment.

How did you react to the studies done that showed evidence of increased aggression, and violent video games? Did you just dismiss them as hogwash? Or did you actually accept it as some sort of truth? I'm honestly curious.

[Ovisterra]

Of course you can have doubt. You can have loads of doubt. Doubt is good. Scepticism is great. It's what drives science. But you're not just having doubt, you're full on discounting studies and refusing to accept them as any kind of evidence just because we can't know for certain that they are 100% accurate.

Which is technically a good thing, and he's not completely throwing the study out the window, he's just saying there is some doubt,

He's yet to concede that we have any kind of point and gives short replies, not addressing any of the points of the study.

as with everything

Not true. Though the overwhelming majority of things cannot be proven with 100% certainty, some can.