Printable View
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gta4/news.html?sid=6145659
And she's supposed to be a 'liberal' ??????Quote:
Democrats Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Hillary Clinton of New York, and Dick Durbin of Illinois persuaded a Senate committee to approve a sweeping study of the "impact of electronic media use" to be organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC.
With the sometimes exception of Leiberman, they all are far left.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Nothing wrong with doing a study, but I doubt it hasn't been done before.
Perhaps she was rubbish at Pac Man? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
What's so revolutionary about this? If they carry out a serious study they'll find that playing games you're allowed to according to the ratings system don't hurt anybody - giving an overly violent game to a 5 years old won't be good, but as long if you're 15 then I suppose the mature rated movies are much worse than any game can be. Being in support of the very study doesn't mean anything bad, except if those who make the study are cheating with the scientific data.
She's learning from the masters: it's not what you do, it's what you say you are doing / will do that matters.
She can suck up to the masses of mothers who are worried that their kids might get affected by them nasty games... Apparently that's the last straw after the gangs and the drugs in reality. :dizzy2:
The big players will if they are at all worried have a quiet word, and my money's on will be told that the dog is allowed to bark, but never bite American industry.
You get the votes, and industry stays happy. All it took was to rehash some data in an old study.
~:smoking:
A lot of studies have been done. Most conclude their is no link, some say it's inconclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
And they clearly have an agenda:
Quote:
Lieberman boasts on his Web site that he "held the first hearings on the threat posed to children by video game violence" and strong-armed the industry into developing a ratings system under threat of government action. He and Clinton introduced legislation late last year that would ban the sale or rental of any "mature" or "ratings pending" video game to a minor, and Lieberman has singled out Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto for particular criticism.
What's wrong with this? She's only calling for a study. Besides I'd definitely support measures wich would forbid shopkeepers to sell violent games to kids that don't meet the age rating. No need for 8 year olds to play GTA3, methinks.
Studies = PR for games
PR for games = game sales
Game sales = money for game developers
Money for game developers = more kick a$$ games!
Bring on your studies! hopefully they will generate enough cashflow that i can finally get my dream game, a Grand Theft Auto style game set in the medieval total war time period! ~D
Isn't it the job of the parents to actually pay attention to what their kids are doing? That is the root of the problem. The last thing we need is more governmental "parenting".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
I'm soooo glad that our tax dollars are so well put to use. I hope that they can keep spending it this way, otherwise they'll go and waste it on crap like building highways and other such useless junk.
It is but it is also the shopkeeps responsibility to make sure that he don't sell to under-aged kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
If parents won't or can't do the right thing for their kids, the government should step in. Kids can be very skilled at hiding stuff for their parents, and when both parents work and can't pay attention to them for half the time a day, it gets worse. You shouldn't think of this as if the government is usurping a parents responsibility, but as making responsible parenting much easier by ensuring your kids don't get their hands on stuff that parents don't want them to have.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Liquor stores don't sell to minors. Is that wrong, because it's the parents who are supposed to make sure their underage children don't get drunk? Down with government parenting! :dizzy2:
I dunno... it all sounds disturbingly "Clockwork Orange" to me. There's a fine line to exposing ten-year-olds to alcohol and restricting games because they "harm the youth," when in fact that is very uncertain.
"'We've seen it all before,' he said, 'in other countries. The thin edge of the wedge. Before we know where we are we shall have the full apparatus of totalitarianism.'"
And the fact that Hillary is supporting this makes her far right totalitarian in my book.
notice they always use Grand theft auto, Why? because it is the grand daddy of all the violent games, how about talking about the other 60% that aren't all that violent, 10% that are educational, 15% that are historicly accurate, and the rest. there trying to paint all video games into the same block as the worst of the worst.
plus it, as all things, should be done in moderation, some people spend 90% of there time at home playing video games, those are idiots. thankfully i don't have that problem as my A.D.D. helps me grow bored after an hour and a half of any video game (except RTW). but some people forsake there jobs families and educations for video games. those are the violent ones, mabey a bit cause they have no loves nor pashions nor influx of money (mabey its cause they get no sunlight:2thumbsup: ) but you can't the games for a small minorities personal problems and claim that it will happen to everyone.
:gah: :help: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
You seem to be confusing the enforcement of regulations on vendors with imposing regulations on parents. The liquor issue is very much up for debate. Just look at the drinking ages in Europe. In many States, parents can legally give their children alcohol.
Oh as someone eles mentioned, the terms liberal and conservative in American politics refers to the level of government involvement. Liberal means liberally as in generously granting government rights while conservative means granting government fewer rights (conserving power). Basically government knows best vs. the people know best.
Are US vendors legally obliged to enforce the age ratings of games, or are they just indicatory? Either way it's not helping much as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Underage drinking happens to be a huge (and growing) problem in my country, despite the fact that you can't buy any alcohol in stores till you're 16. Besides the fact that there ARE drinking ages supports that you can be too young for drinking.Quote:
The liquor issue is very much up for debate. Just look at the drinking ages in Europe.
Thank you, for further augmenting my point. If parents decide their kids are sensible enough to play certain video games / drink booze they can hand it to them. All it does is give the parents more leverage- you want booze or violent video games, you ain't getting it from anywhere but through your parents.Quote:
In many States, parents can legally give their children alcohol.
Ok, dealt with the nonsense. Does anybody have a serious point to make? ~;)
My point is, if parents don't know what their children are doing, it's their fault. A 13 year old, holed up in his room playing GTA for hours on end, is basically parental negligence. Parents use TV, video games, and to a large extent, school, as child care. This is wrong. Parents should be spending more time with their children, watching what they do. No parent is going to be able to keep their kids from doing bad stuff on the sly, but just allowing them to play games nonstop without some supervision or control is just asking for problems. Not just "potential" violent behavior, but scholatic performance and social growth can also suffer.
As a society, we need to realize that parenting is work. We can't just use new technology to keep kids occupied so that parents can go off and do things they are interested in. Active role, that sort of thing. And nothing the government regulates in the market is going to change this mindset, the society must do that for themselves. The best the gov can do is make parents financially and criminally responsible for the misdeeds of their children.
I'd hardly call that an agenda against video games. The ratings exist for the reason they're supposed to be followed. If you're against the ratings, vote for a party that is against ratings, not for a party that supports ratings but are too lazy/incompetent to make sure their laws are followed. Having a law but being too lazy/incompetent to make sure it's followed is not the same as being against that law.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
What one can hope for is that more knowledge about how games affect people will make the ratings institutes let through some mature games as 12years rating or similar in the cases where the ratings are currently too harsh. For example it's quite ridiculous with the current system that a violent game can become 12 years instead of mature by adding a parental lock which replaces red blood with green blood.
:gah2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
The biggest threat to the gaming industry, is everyone below the age of 18.
:idea2:
Grande Purloining of Horse: San Constantinople.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
:help:
Actually the data is very conclusive that exposure to violent movies/games raises levels of aggression (in young adults as well, not just children). It just isn't widely believed.
It has been shown that if children watch the violent movie/tv with the parents than there is very little effect. Which goes back to the point drone was making.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vo...2377-1-med.gif
Quote:
Media violence and aggression. Effects of media violence on aggression for different types of studies. Diamond widths are proportional to the number of independent samples. There were 46 longitudinal samples involving 4975 participants, 86 cross-sectional samples involving 37,341 participants, 28 field experiment samples involving 1976 participants, and 124 laboratory experiment samples involving 7305 participants. Red lines indicate the mean effect sizes. Blue lines indicate a 95% confidence interval. Note that zero (dashed line, indicating no effect) is excluded from all confidence intervals.
Quote:
A positive link between media violence and aggression regardless of research method is clearly shown (see the figure). Experimental studies demonstrate a causal link. Laboratory experiments yield slightly larger effects than other studies, presumably because of greater control over irrelevant factors (see the figure). Field experiments demonstrate causal effects in naturalistic settings. Cross-sectional studies demonstrate a positive association between media violence and types of real-world aggression (for example, assault) that cannot be studied ethically in experimental settings. Longitudinal studies reveal long-term effects of early media violence exposure on later aggressive acts. These effects are not trivial in magnitude. For example, they are larger than the effects of calcium intake on bone mass or of lead exposure on IQ in children (4). Interestingly, recent work demonstrates similar-sized effects of violent video games on aggression
Quote:
six major professional societies in the United States--the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association--recently concluded that "the data point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children"
Quote:
Despite the consensus among experts, lay people do not seem to be getting the message from the popular press that media violence contributes to a more violent society. We recently demonstrated that even as the scientific evidence linking media violence to aggression has accumulated, news reports about the effects of media violence have shifted to weaker statements, implying that there is little evidence for such effects (4). This inaccurate reporting in the popular press may account for continuing controversy long after the debate should have been over, much as the cigarette smoking/cancer controversy persisted long after the scientific community knew that smoking causes cancer.
She believes the government should control and monitor everything. That makes here a "liberal" here in the States, which means something different in your part of the world. More accurately, she wants to be dictator, not President.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
It shows there is a correlation* between the two, not that one causes the other.Quote:
Actually the data is very conclusive that exposure to violent movies/games raises levels of aggression (in young adults as well, not just children). It just isn't widely believed.
*The correlation from your graph maxes out at 0.3. This is a very low correlation, closer to a random scatter than an even loose association.
Ditto to those who support more parenting by the parents, and less by the government.
Crazed Rabbit
That does not make her liberal; it makes her totalitarian. They are not the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
"Liberal" implies "leftist", which implies "economically left." This means government regulation and control of the economy. It has no connection to government control over the person.
"Totalitarian" implies a desire for the government to control the person; it has no connection with "Liberal" or "Conservative." Take Communiism and Facism, for example: Communim is, as you will agree, at the extreme end of liberalism. Facism, on the other hand, is on the extreme end of conservativism, since it does not make any attempt whatsoever to control the economy or corporations. It gives them a free hand. However, they both exercise full and complete control over the individual person; therefore, they are totalitarian in nature. Therefore, Totalitarianism has no connection whatsoever with either Liberalism or Conservatism.
What Senator Clinton is advocating is somewhat leftist, in that it attempts to restrict corporate activities, to a certain degree. However, its main objective is not control over the corporations; its main objective is control over the person. Therefore, this is a totalitarian move on Clinton's part.
[VOICE=Nerdy]Get it right.
Anyway, there are plenty of Senators on both ends of the economic spectrum that support this.
Why? Are the days in which the nation's wisest minds debate the pressing issues of the young nation...long gone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba
...I suppose. Damn videogames. :laugh4: I tell you, they're at fault.
:knight: *challenges Viking to a Medieval jousting duel*Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
How am I a threat? :inquisitive:
Exactly. Post hoc ergo propter hoc nailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
In fact, some time ago I heard a story (didn't try to confirm it) that Harvard did a similar study, showing violent movies to schoolboys for two hours, then released them and observe them acting, well, violent. Yale, in order to nitpick Harvard, did the same study, except with kiddy shows you'd expect from PBS being shown for 2 hours, and observed the very same behavior from schoolboys. Or so I've heard... ~:P
Experimental studies demonstrate a causal link.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It's ok to have low correlation if you have a large subject size. e.g. if you flip a coin 10 times and get 6 heads and 4 tails it doesn't mean anything. If you flip it 10,000 times and get 6,000 heads and 4,000 tails it's significant. In this case the correlation is stronger than that of the effects of calcium intake on bone mass or of lead exposure on IQ in children. I don't suppose you'd feed your children lead instead of calcium :2thumbsup:Quote:
*The correlation from your graph maxes out at 0.3. This is a very low correlation, closer to a random scatter than an even loose association.
Crazed Rabbit
I do enjoy quoting my own posts :balloon2: it's like legal spam :laugh4:
postcount++;
Lead exposure does also cause anaemia, which is far easier to demonstrate than a decrease in IQ. If you are to analyse all the tissues lead damages it is a very significant poison.
~:smoking:
Yes, I created a topic with plenty of examples of meaningless correlations, for example the more plastic waste scrap you import, the more murders by firearms your country gets. There, the correlation was something like 0.8. In the study quoted above, the correlation was something like 0.3. Simplifying things, you could say that a 0.3 correlation means there's 30% chance that it would be true that videogames would cause more aggressiveness or more aggressiveness would cause more videogame playing, or a combination.
I would say it decreases the change of aggressive behaviour.
When I get irritated driving in traffic GTA can help me not to ram that little old lady slowly crossing the road.
Just go home and ram as much little old lady’s as you want.
Gets it all out of my system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
You get exposed to unhuman violence, and sometimes even Hot Coffe. If you continue to expose yourself to such, I see no other choice than to shut down the gaming industry. :stupido:
I support ratings as guidlines, not as law. Strict ratings will just lead to companies making games that specifiaclly don't break the rules but are totally unfit for the audience they're being sold too. The green blood instead of red blood is a good example. Look at movies, they can be plain rancid but deemed 'okay' because they don't include four letter words. :oops:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
EDIT: I admit the title of the thread is a but too extreme, but I wanted to start a Clinton bashing thread for once !
I wish Lieberman would quit trying to be a Democrat and join the Republican party already.
Maybe we can do a trade: we'll take McCain. ~;)
Heil Hillary! Für immer mein Fürher! SEIG HEIL!
[/sarcasticantihillaryrant]
I hate her. With a passion.
So neither "study" had a control group? Fascinating.Quote:
In fact, some time ago I heard a story (didn't try to confirm it) that Harvard did a similar study, showing violent movies to schoolboys for two hours, then released them and observe them acting, well, violent. Yale, in order to nitpick Harvard, did the same study, except with kiddy shows you'd expect from PBS being shown for 2 hours, and observed the very same behavior from schoolboys. Or so I've heard... ~:P
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
:sleeping:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I do not think she has any real beliefs except that she will be president in a few years, and she probably will. She will leave this alone if something else appears for her to exploit.
I only read some of the First Page,but
jesus Chirst,oh my god!!
some 8 year old kid shot his teacher,lets go blame GTA for it!!!!
*gets lawyer*
it like come on.if a 15 year old kid gets a sniper rifle and starts shooting at people with his friend off of a bridge and kills 1 or 2 people (it did happen,I read it in Gameinformer) that lets blame GTA, cuz the Kids did.. the Kids,I highly doubt they got the Main idea from. they probalby did it on the Game, but they thought it was "cool" to do that, not cuz the Game infulcene it.
it just like if someone murders someone else. that guy would Plead Insane..
ok, it like if some RTW guy gets Mad and Shoots my Clan, and I kill him in revange with a Sword that my Brother Has (real Civil War one), ok, people will say "it cuz of him playing RTW or watching Civil War toy solider/games/movies" and I can always blame it on RTW..
what u think??
Eh? :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro