| User | Comment |
|---|
verouge   | | posted 30-Apr-2008 8:40am |
Such video games like Grand Theaf Auto or Country Strike or Red Alert etc aren't much old to really blame them for the violence in todays youth, maybe after 4years, yes we can put some of the blame on them and the rest is on our presidents and leaders who enjoy applying their violent plans on the world. Violence aged from a very long time.
You can blame the leaders, sometimes the religions and the principles, you can blame the way of growing children at homes and you can blame some video games and of course, you should blame HOLLYWOOD! |
Lahdee  | | posted 30-Apr-2008 8:51am |
Nope. |
bill   | | posted 30-Apr-2008 9:00am |
In general, I think it's a bad idea to blame stuff (like video games, drugs, guns, etc.) for something people do.
People are responsible for their actions.
We delude ourselves and fail to recognize the problem when we blame something other than people for social problems.
Blaming stuff just leads us to be less free. We pass laws against stuff and it doesn't solve the problem, because the problem is people. But, then we don't get to use stuff because we made it illegal. |
| Jody | | posted 30-Apr-2008 9:10am |
I believe additional violence in the media, media aimed at younger and younger children, is partially to blame. I know the entertainment industry says "we're only giving people what they want", but that neither justifies nor excuses it. |
LJD  | | posted 30-Apr-2008 11:05am |
Yes. They can desensitize them. It hurts health. There are many reasons for the rise in violence and crime today. Poor food, loud music, poor entertainment, broken homes, drugs, overcrowding, and a lack of God in their lives. |
| icurok | | (reply to LJD) posted 30-Apr-2008 11:20am |
Doesn't the bible desensitize you to violence? |
| LindaH | | posted 30-Apr-2008 11:24am |
No. Even when they beat each other with the game consoles, you can't blame the game.
I remember one game where you hit people with a car, and if you weren't supposed to hit them, red subtraction sign with a number floated above them, and if you hit the right person, a green plus sign and number floated over them. I miss that game. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 30-Apr-2008 11:25am |
Loud music?! 
That just makes you dance. Who has time for fighting when you're dancing? |
Enheduanna  | | posted 30-Apr-2008 11:29am |
No; it would be very convenient if they were, but they're not. |
| Galomorro | | posted 30-Apr-2008 11:46am |
No. They are only a small part of it, if at all. Try their peers first and the environment they live in. TV would also be a good candidate, as in too much of it and all the violence there. Their parents, their school environment. But no way can you ONLY blame video games. |
| Melf | | posted 30-Apr-2008 11:56am |
I wouldn't at all say that we live in a violence driven society, rather a fear driven one. Video games are certainly not to blame for that. |
| Frostbrand | | posted 30-Apr-2008 12:20pm |
No, they're just a scapegoat for people who don't want to do any real work to fix the problem; it's laziness plain and simple. |
| icurok | | posted 30-Apr-2008 12:50pm |
Because of the release of GTA IV, there was an article in the Guardian about knee jerk video game bashers.
"I'm talking to you, you self-righteous politicians and newspaper columnists, you relics who beat on computer games: you've already lost. Enjoy your carping while you can, because tomorrow you're gone.
According to the UK Statistics Authority, the median age of the UK population is 39. Half the people who live here were born in 1969 or later. The BBC microcomputer was released in 1981, when those 1969ers were 12. It was ubiquitous in schools; it introduced a generation to computers. It introduced a generation to computer games.
Half the UK population has grown up playing computer games. They aren't addicted, they aren't psychopathic killers, and they resent those boneheads – that's you – who imply that they are addicted and are psychopathic killers.
Next year, that 1969 will be 1970; the year after, it'll be 1971.
Dwell on this, you smug, out-of-touch, proud-to-be-innumerate fossils: half the UK population thinks games are fun and cool, and you don't. Those born in 1990 get the vote this year."
link |
| thecomic22 | | posted 30-Apr-2008 2:01pm |
I dont think so. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to icurok) posted 30-Apr-2008 2:09pm |
> Because of the release of GTA IV, there was an
> article in the Guardian about knee jerk video
> game bashers.
>
> "I'm talking to you, you self-righteous politicians
> and newspaper columnists, you relics who beat
> on computer games: you've already lost. Enjoy
> your carping while you can, because tomorrow you're
> gone.
>
> According to the UK Statistics Authority, the
> median age of the UK population is 39. Half the
> people who live here were born in 1969 or later.
> The BBC microcomputer was released in 1981, when
> those 1969ers were 12. It was ubiquitous in schools;
> it introduced a generation to computers. It introduced
> a generation to computer games.
>
> Half the UK population has grown up playing computer
> games. They aren't addicted, they aren't psychopathic
> killers, and they resent those boneheads – that's
> you – who imply that they are addicted and are
> psychopathic killers.
>
> Next year, that 1969 will be 1970; the year after,
> it'll be 1971.
>
> Dwell on this, you smug, out-of-touch, proud-to-be-innumerate
> fossils: half the UK population thinks games are
> fun and cool, and you don't. Those born in 1990
> get the vote this year."
>
> >" HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/apr/28/games.censorship
>">link
Fantastic! |
dilfreak  | | posted 30-Apr-2008 2:59pm |
Saying video games are to blame for school shootings and bomb plots is just like saying, "guns kill people". Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's plain and simple. Video games may instill violent tendencies, but they are not the problem. The problem lies in the individual playing the game and/or in the parents who do not monitor the youth's play. Limits need to be set and the individual/parents need to recognize this fact. |
| toxthexend | | posted 30-Apr-2008 3:10pm |
there are so many violent videogames out there today. young people play these games and decided they want to see if it will work in real life. when it does, they keep on doing it. damn video games |
| JessicaWoman99 | | posted 30-Apr-2008 5:25pm |
I think it all depends on how these kids are raised and brought up in the world give them a loaded gun
and see what happens |
| southernyankee | | posted 30-Apr-2008 6:22pm |
"It is no secret that we live in a violence driven society and the recent school shootings and bomb plots only support this."
Actually, no, as a matter of fact we don't live in a more violent society than we did before. School shootings have not gone up. Theres nothing to blame the increase in violence because there's no increase in the first place. Your whole premise is flawed.
Had there been an actual increase, I would still say no, they are not to blame.
|
| romkey | | posted 30-Apr-2008 6:26pm |
No. |
| Crayons | | posted 30-Apr-2008 7:47pm |
I don't play any video games at all and I love violence and bloody stuff and corpses, I think that video games just help someone get used to seeing disturbing death and violence at an early age, I don't think it gets them to actually do it. |
| they | | posted 1-May-2008 12:18am |
No |
| docgbrown |
My initial instinct was to say "No way!" but then I remembered that the first video games were developed for the Army to get guys to hit their targets in real fire fights. I do think Video game desensitizes players but are not the only reasons or factors involved. |
| cloudhugger |
No, not just the games. It's a combination of immunizations, flu shots, advanced technology messing with our electrical systems in our bodies, being in a war that is retarded, and lack of compassion in the world today.
It would be easy to blame one thing, but it is in fact everyone's responsibility. |
| FauxLo |
Are they to blame? No.
Do they glamorize violence and lead young minds to misconstrue the intent of the game for something else? Definitely. |
| ballin1000 |
No, because videogames are...Well videogames most kids know you can jump off buildings, get shoot like 10 times, and kill another human being. Hey, we were all kids at one time in our life, they were't as violent but you know Ms.Pac-man did get chased by those mean ghost!!? lol, so if you just try to play with your kids you will see how fun these "games" can be. |
| LJD | | (reply to icurok) posted 1-May-2008 11:35pm |
The Bible teaches, guides us to a better life. We're God's creation, he knows what is best for us. The Bible does not desensitize one to violence. At the same time God does not expect Christian people to roll over and play dead. Those that don't know God's Word, they have no moral compass. Christian people should not tolerate the filth they have, this is why society is in trouble....political correctness is deadly. We have a right to live according to God's Word. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 1-May-2008 11:38pm |
Loud music disrupts the body's rhythm, causes stress. Hard metal music, rap, garbage noise I call it, is drug music. Loud music hurts the hearing, while hurting the kidney and liver. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 1-May-2008 11:47pm |
Music is rhythm. Dancing to it relieves stress.
It's all how you look at it. |
| cerealkiller | | posted 2-May-2008 12:10pm |
Probably partially. Kids have no life anymore. They just sit in front of the tube playing agressive games. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 2-May-2008 12:38pm |
I, too, feel some dancing gives the body a good flow. I think ballroom, the waltz is good. It depends on the rhythm. |
| LindaH | | (reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 12:53pm |
Those are good dances. I like faster dancing better, but I never got into the intensely fast, slamming around and into other people though. That goes along with the intensely hard, fast music. Never got into that either. I like stuff with a lot of jumping and hopping, but my ankles don't. |
| icurok | | (reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 5:37pm |
A lot of what you say is based on assumptions that are not only false, but verifiably and demonstrably false. A lot of what you say creates logical contradictions I doubt you even aware of or have seriously considered. The fundamental argument against the idea that morality cannot exist without God is that when you say it, you don't mean just any God. You mean your God, the God of Abraham. Now I'm not going to waste time arguing about whether God exists or not. The existence of God cannot be proven one way or another. But your beliefs do not end on the mere existence of God. You have additional beliefs which stem from your belief in the existence of God. You appear to believe that (1) there is only one God, that (2) the Bible is God's Word (and the only source of God's teachings) and finally (3) that without knowledge of the Bible, one cannot have a moral compass. The first two cannot be proven since they are inextricably linked to God's existence, however the third is falsifiable since in order to show that it is wrong you would only have to demonstrate that there have been people without knowledge of God's Word who were moral.
I can do better than that. I can show you that there have been people with no knowledge of the Abrahamic God who have created works that have provided the foundation for much of Western and Eastern thought.
Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Lao Tzu, to name just six, all lived prior to the birth of Jesus. All of them had reason and wisdom and intelligence. None of them knew of your God and yet all of them used their minds and their eyes to look at individuals and society and think about how people should act towards one another for the betterment of themselves and society. None of them were immoral or amoral and in fact showed a higher sense of morality than that which is shown in the Old Testament. Buddha thought that slavery was an abomination which caused needless human suffering whereas in the Old Testament it is not only allowed, but actively encouraged.
How can it be that a man with no knowledge of your God can independently come to a conclusion that not only contradicts the Bible, but shows an improved sense of morality over the Bible?
As a follower of God, you might respond by saying that you believe Buddha must have been divinely inspired, coaxed by God into manifesting these thoughts. You might argue that a man could not possibly have come to such a moral conclusion on his own without God intervening in some way. The logical contradiction that arises here, is that if God has the ability to inspire moral thought in those who have not read the Bible then why is the Bible needed at all?
As for violence, I appreciate that God doesn't expect Christians to "roll over and play dead" as you put it. But neither would I expect God to allow you as Christians to commit acts of cruelty. That, as far as I can see, would be immoral. So, consider the following passage from 1 Samuel.
18:25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.
18:26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.
18:27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.
18:28 And Saul saw and knew that the LORD was with David
When you read that passage, are you not horrified at the senseless waste of human life? Does it not bring a chill to your spine as it would to any sane and right thinking person or has God's endorsement of a brutal and ambitious sadist left you desensitized to his acts of violence? |
| jettles |
are the games a symptom or a cause. i would think more of a symptom and adds to our exposure to violence and our numbness or desensitization to violence...... which may lead to an easier leap to violence. but a direct cause, no! |
| jettles | | (reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 7:17pm |
> Yes. They can desensitize them. It hurts health. There are many
> reasons for the rise in violence and crime today. Poor food, loud
> music, poor entertainment, broken homes, drugs, overcrowding, and
> a lack of God in their lives.
don't forget the queers........ damn them all!
|
| LindaH | | posted 2-May-2008 10:42pm |
I think everyone should be desensitized, especially people who are not inclined to violence. Desensitization gets a bad rap. I think it's a good thing to be exposed to something like that so much that you don't get fearful and emotional. It's good to be able to think with your head rather than fear and panic.
Desensitize:
1: to make (a sensitized or hypersensitive individual) insensitive or nonreactive to a sensitizing agent2: to make emotionally insensitive or callous; specifically : to extinguish an emotional response (as of fear, anxiety, or guilt) to stimuli that formerly induced it
Less emotion = greater capacity to think. More people should be able to think, when they are faced with what would normally be a fear-inducing situation. It sure would save innocent people a lot of grief.
Yay for desensitization! |
| southernyankee | | (reply to LindaH) posted 2-May-2008 11:18pm |
Especially racing games. Next time you get in a panic mode while losing control driving a racing game might save your life one day. |
| LindaH |
True. It's good to not panic while driving. I wonder if any of those games have snow and ice added in, and steering wheel consoles that can detect reactions like overcorrecting. That would be good for some northerners to play. |
| LJD | | (reply to LindaH) posted 3-May-2008 9:51pm |
When I was young, I did the Swing, Jitterbug, Rhumba, ChaCha, Bebop, Waltz, Polka. My first love Joe, and I used to go Polka dancing a couple nights a month, lots of fun. Being a different age, there were not the jumping and hopping, hard, fast music, the slamming....personally I think it can be dangerous. My granddaughter said they have another dance that kids tried to dance at the high school, which was literally sexually explicit. I guess some parents got whiff of it, and the students were warned, if they do it again, there would be no dances. My granddaughter said the kids didn't do it again.
Today, the most I could dance to would be the waltz, or some other slow dance...LOL |
| LindaH | | posted 3-May-2008 10:35pm |
It must be kind of difficult for them to really get into the music itself, when they are too busy trying to shock people. Their loss, I guess. |
| LJD | | (reply to icurok) posted 3-May-2008 10:45pm |
As I've mentioned in the past, I'm not a Biblical scholar, can't quote verse upon verse. There is scripture Ecclesiastes 3, that says there is a time to kill,
Read Genesis 3:15.....God said he will put enmity between the woman's seed and Satan's seed. We are of the Woman's seed. There is Satan's seed alive and causing confusion, and trouble around the world. We have a right to defend ourselves, wouldn't you agree? Unless a person understands Genesis 3:15, the rest of the Bible will be difficult to understand.
Until God returns there will be no real peace on the earth.
Icurok, I'm happy you're reading the Bible. God Bless!
|
| LJD | | (reply to jettles) posted 3-May-2008 10:48pm |
When I see a homosexual person, I see a person in pain, some hurt in their lives...as I've said before I have three homosexual people in my family. I have a better understanding of them. I love my homosexual family members as I do the rest. |
| Gomezy3k | | posted 4-May-2008 12:43pm |
No, just like guns do not force anyone to kill, games do not make someone want to kill... |
| Iseult |
No, I do not agree. Somehow I think bad parenting has something to do with it. |
| Enigma |
No I most emphatically do NOT. |
| Zang |
Young people today are less violent than they were in the past. I think that is due to the music they listen to.  |
