TV News & "Expert" Blame Violent Games For Teen Killer
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
1)That opinion is wrong. Full stop.
2)Halo's not even that violent
3)If games are becoming more popular, by extension so are violent games. So where's the inrease in violent crimes over the last few years?
4)How long till his book gets majorly review bombed?
2)Halo's not even that violent
3)If games are becoming more popular, by extension so are violent games. So where's the inrease in violent crimes over the last few years?
4)How long till his book gets majorly review bombed?
Like all things in life, the correlation between violent games and violent behavior is entirely dependent upon the person. There is no concrete, set-in-stone fact about whether or not games cause violence, that goes for the popular gamer notion that there is no correlation. Obsession with violent media can be an indicator of an unstable mind, as it was with this boy. Or it can unlock latent fantasies within someone, thanks to its interactivity. Or it can simply be a fun way of relieving stress, as it is with most of us. It's exactly like that Critical Miss comic; slander versus pander
Chalmers realizes this is 99% of male teens right? I'd love to see his other 8 causes, I'll bet it goes something like this:
1) Listens to rock and roll and/or hip hop.
2) Masturbates
3) Looks at porn
4) Uses the internet
5) Has consumed alcohol
6) Breathes
7) Lives with his parent(s)
8) Is under 21
Something tells me the parents were just bad at parenting. They thought Halo 3 was too violent for their 16 year old son...seriously, what person thinks that? Either overly controlling misinformed idiots, or someone who has a child with severe psychological problems they're not willing to notice/treat.
the mona lisa made me do it. I went to the louvre, I saw the mona lisa, and then I went on a killing spree. so, it must be the mona lisa. Paintings are a bad influence in this world, especially Da Vinci paintings, because it was a Da Vinci painting that caused me to go on that killing spree. How do I know that it was the painting that made me go on a killing spree? well, I went to see it sometime before it happened, so that must be the reason. that's logic. I think we should ban paintings altogether, but I might be persuaded to have a comity assigned to individually reviewing each painting on it's moral values. certainly no more women or smiles in paintings. that stuff is dangerous, as we now know.
And should in the future someone else decide to commit murder, and we find he or she looked at a painting that was approved by this comity as safe... well, I think that would be a solid case of negligent homicide for each and every member of that comity. after all, it was their job to protect us from filth like paintings.
I also believe we should have classes in school teaching children about the dangers of paintings, especially of those featuring women that smirk. We don't want our children, our hope for the future to grow up to become murderers do we? so we need to do the responsible thing. I will also insist that finger painting for pre-schoolers will be strictly forbidden. that stuff is a gateway art.
naturally, all artists should be registered, I want to know if a painter lives near me, I think that as a prospective parent I have the right to know if my neighbourhood is safe from these kinds of people. sure, they claim they are "harmless" and that their paintings aren't intended to make our children murderers. but we can't be too sure, now can we? it only takes one lunatic extremist "artist" to create hate filled art inciting our kids to commit murder. It can't be that I have a history of mental illness or depression. It can't possibly be that maybe, some people are just not good at raising their children. it can't be that theirs is a problem with responsibility, and it certainly can't be an isolated case. I mean, I killed all those people because of the Mona Lisa, and then there was this other dude who claimed, not too long after the Mona Lisa was burned, that he had caught a glimpse of her before he did something similar.
What do you mean? "Insanity defence"?
I think it as ever a clear cut case. paintings of women, possibly smirking, and especially by mr. L. Da Vinci, are vile and corrupt dangerous items, that we need to keep away from those so vulnerable to it.
And should in the future someone else decide to commit murder, and we find he or she looked at a painting that was approved by this comity as safe... well, I think that would be a solid case of negligent homicide for each and every member of that comity. after all, it was their job to protect us from filth like paintings.
I also believe we should have classes in school teaching children about the dangers of paintings, especially of those featuring women that smirk. We don't want our children, our hope for the future to grow up to become murderers do we? so we need to do the responsible thing. I will also insist that finger painting for pre-schoolers will be strictly forbidden. that stuff is a gateway art.
naturally, all artists should be registered, I want to know if a painter lives near me, I think that as a prospective parent I have the right to know if my neighbourhood is safe from these kinds of people. sure, they claim they are "harmless" and that their paintings aren't intended to make our children murderers. but we can't be too sure, now can we? it only takes one lunatic extremist "artist" to create hate filled art inciting our kids to commit murder. It can't be that I have a history of mental illness or depression. It can't possibly be that maybe, some people are just not good at raising their children. it can't be that theirs is a problem with responsibility, and it certainly can't be an isolated case. I mean, I killed all those people because of the Mona Lisa, and then there was this other dude who claimed, not too long after the Mona Lisa was burned, that he had caught a glimpse of her before he did something similar.
What do you mean? "Insanity defence"?
I think it as ever a clear cut case. paintings of women, possibly smirking, and especially by mr. L. Da Vinci, are vile and corrupt dangerous items, that we need to keep away from those so vulnerable to it.
We have a vested interest in defending games against 'experts' claiming our medium to be potentially harmful to certain people who can't access society the same way most of us can.
But we're not experts. Just because they're telling us something we don't want to hear means we dismiss it as bullshit. I'm not saying that games DO make killers. i'm saying i'm going to accept there must be some basis behind it. Sure not every gamer is a vicious sociopath. but some are. and when studies like these come out, they're pointing the finger at those people, not all of us. (though they do tend to point the finger at the entire medium itself regardless of audience)
But we're not experts. Just because they're telling us something we don't want to hear means we dismiss it as bullshit. I'm not saying that games DO make killers. i'm saying i'm going to accept there must be some basis behind it. Sure not every gamer is a vicious sociopath. but some are. and when studies like these come out, they're pointing the finger at those people, not all of us. (though they do tend to point the finger at the entire medium itself regardless of audience)
Let's get one thing straight, Mr Chalmers. Halo 3 is pretty much the least violent shooter in existence. The only thing you shoot is aliens, and the only gore that happens is splashes of luminous paint. He'd be better off blaming it on Gears of War, Killzone or CoD. Seriously, what an alarmist piece of shit.
It's funny that there are urban kids too poor to buy a console let alone a video game that join gangs and shoot people at the age of thirteen, smoke and drink and do drugs and prostitute themselves and it's never noticed.
Yet one poorly disciplined and more than likely emotionally deprived white suburban brat decides to be violent and all of a sudden video games are poisoning our child.
And beyond that if Danny Petric was depressed, did anyone ask WHY? I don't want to be a victim blamer or anything, but what the hell was going on the Petric house that he thought it was a good idea to kill his mother and attempt to kill his father? I mean violent imagery can fuck you up, but for a son to kill his mother....that takes some deep psychologic shit that I doubt a game like Halo could cause.
Yet one poorly disciplined and more than likely emotionally deprived white suburban brat decides to be violent and all of a sudden video games are poisoning our child.
And beyond that if Danny Petric was depressed, did anyone ask WHY? I don't want to be a victim blamer or anything, but what the hell was going on the Petric house that he thought it was a good idea to kill his mother and attempt to kill his father? I mean violent imagery can fuck you up, but for a son to kill his mother....that takes some deep psychologic shit that I doubt a game like Halo could cause.
Anyone else just getting tired of this? This is like the 8th person announced on national tv for being an expert and blaming all of society's violence on video games (exaggerating, but point stands).
They're obviously wrong, is this even debate-worthy?
---
They're obviously wrong, is this even debate-worthy?
---
I lol'dDeshara said:
I've become less violent because of video games. Now I have a way to vent my aggression in a nonviolent manner. So yeah, put that in your scientific study and smoke it.