Arcanist said:
BrotherRool said:
The Ohio teenager who killed his mother and shot his father after they wouldn't let him play Halo 3?
So i think it's entirely correct to say that in this particular case, a violent video game was the cause of a teen killer.
No, that would be the entirely wrong conclusion to draw.
This kid obviously had issues well before he picked up a controller. He's a sociopath with piss-poor parents and easy access to a gun. Add in an obsession with which to fixate, and there's only one way this story could possibly end.
Like somebody said before me, the object of his obsession is irrelevant - it is the fact that he is obsessed at all. All other circumstances equal, you could replace video games with grooming baby rabbits and it still would have ended the same way.
I didn't draw a conclusion. But just as WW1 wasn't started by the assassination of Ferdinand, but was actually the result of a powderkeg of alliances, arms races, colonisation and history of bad humour, and it is still correct to say that the assassination was the cause of WW1. A video game was the cause of the death of his parents. Sure he had a psychological dispensation, that doesn't make the video game any less the spark.
This is the one time, where in the broadest sense, the media is right. If you want me to fight the actual point instead of being light-hearted. There have been many many psychological studies showing that to people predisposed to psychological problems (particularly obsession style ones) violent video games were the trigger to that behaviour. And when all the research was summed up that one time, studies against and before behaviour, not only were there more studies proving that violent behaviour can come out in certain exceptional people due to videogames, but they were better peer-reviewed too.
The whole point of science is that you believe the conclusion, without allowing what you want the answer to be to cloud your judgement and until someone can show me evidence counter to that presented and not anecdotal or I think this evidence, or a study commissioned by people with a clear objective, I will continue to think as I do. When you produce that evidence I will change my opinion happily and willingly.
Apart from anything else, would the army invest all that money into America's Army if it didn't work as a recruitment tool? And the army is nothing but making violent behaviour acceptable to normal people. (And yes this is exactly the sort of point that I said I wouldn't accept and I don't expect you too either, in all honesty, i don't)