Video games in Congress' crosshairs

[SHRED]

Steroids in Sports
Flag Burning Amendment
Same Sex Marriage Amendment ...
...and now Violent Video Games.

Just like sweeps week, it's election time again boys and girls.

--------------------

Video games in Congress' crosshairs

By Anne Broache
Story last modified Fri Jun 02 17:06:48 PDT 2006

The purported problem of violent and sexually explicit video games has resurfaced on politicians' agenda as the November election draws near.

A U.S. House of Representatives committee on consumer protection says it will hold a hearing on the topic later this month, with a focus on "informing parents and protecting children" from the alleged dangers of those types of games.

A committee schedule originally listed the event for next Wednesday. But that date has been postponed because of scheduling conflicts, Jack Seum, chief of staff for Rep. Cliff Stearns, the Florida Republican who chairs the panel, said on Friday.

CONTINUED:
http://news.com.com/Video+games+in+Congress+crosshairs/2100-1028_3-6079654.html?tag=nefd.top

[YOY]

Assholes...frankly this one causes backfire among

people who've actually played video games.

[China_cat]

5. I abhor the idea of censorship

but if the military successfully uses video games to break the combat troops' inhibition against killing, don't we at least need to rethink some of these games' potential?

[endarkenment]

9. You of course have some real evidence that this is true.

I wasn't aware that the military has had a particularly hard time convincing the troops to kill, and somehow I rather doubt that there exists evidence that supports the thesis that this inhibition can be removed most readily through video games.

I am aware of the fact that the army spent a whole lot of taxpayer money to develop a combat simulation first person shooter game that basically nobody plays 'cause it sucks. I rather doubt that this game has had any influence on troop combat behavior.

I wonder how they managed to get soldiers to kill before video games existed. This must explain the extraordinarily low casualty statistics from all modern wars prior to this one.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

12. I am not in favor of censorship but...

There is truth in how a person learns and takes in information. Once a person plays a video game over and over the skill level increases and the learning curve is reduced. That is why pre-school children, as well as people of all ages, benefit from educational games and TV. Synapses actually reroute, building new electrical firing nerve endings to process information. This is due to the constant repetition of, not only, video games but anything that is practiced through rote, champion athletes for example, people just get better at their chosen endeavor. The truth is, you can desensitize human beings in regards to violent behavior, just as you can learn math or history, in the same, EXACT manner.

To think that video games have no impact on the human brain is not realistic.

That said --

I believe that legislating this sort of entertainment is dangerous. I have 2 children ages 5 and 6 - I buy them age appropriate games and oversee their TV viewing. That is MY job as a parent... I am guessing that there are a lot of children who, through no fault of their own, do not enjoy the same sort of parenting... But.. Censorship? Never.

[endarkenment]

14. Well there is a strawman argument of the first order.

"To think that video games have no impact on the human brain is not realistic."

Did I make that argument? Could you please show me where I did so? I made the argument that I do not believe that there exists good evidence that playing first person shooter games makes people more willing to kill real human beings. Just present the evidence - real evidence, not assertions that this is obvious, not nebulous statements about synapses, and I will be proved wrong.

[YOY]

15. Furthermore they need to prove that this activity

causes more violence than ANY OTHER normally acceptable activity for any age group given.

Remember the kids in HS football that were juicing...hell even a few that weren't? I seem to remember them being violent at parties, toward girlfriends, and even getting away with violence in school due to their 'social standing'.

Simply pointing out one or two cases of violence in gamers whereas as a whole the lot of us are significantly LESS PRONE TO VIOLENT acts than people with other more 'socially acceptable' hobbies.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

16. Hmmm , Strawman argument --- that's what I call condescending

Do you have to be so fucking insulting? What you said was:

I rather doubt that this game has had any influence on troop combat behavior."

I am saying that there IS evidence that playing video games changes the physical structure of the brain. If you can teach a child the basics by introducing video games and TV - It is not a very difficult leap to believe that there are people who will be desensitized through violent video games.

I know I sound so FUCKING STUPID because I am trying to look at the WHOLE issue as opposed to a myopic, one sided view. I am probably the most liberal person you will ever meet, short of the card carrying socialists out there ... BUT I have spent years studying behavioral psychology and it's something I know a little bit about. You change a behavior through rote application, be it for a good cause or for something not so good.

If you do not believe me, then maybe you can look at that unreliable bunch of liberals over at PBS for a starter:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/work/adolescent.html

Here is a quote form this special:
Giedd hypothesizes that the growth in gray matter followed by the pruning of connections is a particularly important stage of brain development in which what teens do or do not do can affect them for the rest of their lives. He calls this the "use it or lose it principle," and tells FRONTLINE, "If a teen is doing music or sports or academics, those are the cells and connections that will be hardwired. If they're lying on the couch or playing video games or MTV, those are the cells and connections that are going to survive."

I love technology and love the video game... I adore them...It's just that some people are more impressionable than you are or I am. No, I am not going to kill anyone because I have played violent, shoot to kill, video games.

As for a combat troops behavior... - Yes, I believe that violent games can desensitize a person. Show me a study that says they do not desensitize people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. "I know I sound so FUCKING STUPID"

Gilligan, the idea that video games lead to or cause violence is so intractably fucking stupid that is should be disregarded immediately. There's nothing myopic or one-sided about common sense.

You don't go into a thread about some hillbilly PTA board wants to ban Harry Potter books and talk about how studies show Harry Potter alters brain structure; I hope.

[endarkenment]

19. strawman arguments are commonplace

Making one does not render you stupid, nor was my pointing out that you are putting words in my mouth intended to be 'fucking insulting'. Your using the strawman fallacy might or might not be intentional on your part, that would depend on your state of mind and of that I have no knowledge. I only know what you write, not what your intentions are.

You then proceed to commit another rhetorical fallacy:
"As for a combat troops behavior... - Yes, I believe that violent games can desensitize a person. Show me a study that says they do not desensitize people. "

Asking somebody to prove that something doesn't exist is a standard rhetorical trick. You may not know it is a standard trick, so I am not claiming that you are intentionally being deceptive here. I hope you will not take this as condescension to point you to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a type of logical fallacy of the following form:

"This exists because there is no proof that it does not exist."
Non-fallacious ways to prove something include the use of logical syllogisms and/or the incorporation of empirical observations. But it is not logical to argue that something exists simply because there is no proof to the contrary; one cannot say, "No one has proven that aliens do not exist. Therefore, based on that alone, they must exist, notwithstanding that I have no evidence that they do exist". Given (as it is above) that it was not proven that aliens do not exist, they might exist, but this alone does not prove them to exist."

I view discussions here as a way to get at the truth through open and honest debate. When the debate becomes dishonest, intentionally or otherwise, I feel compelled to point out why I think it is dishonest. The intention is not to insult you, it is to point out that knowingly or not you are using some of the well known forms of logical fallacies.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

25. Dishonest?

First, I find your argument intelligent. I also see some holes in it -- Please allow me to expand on this:

No one has ever characterized me as being dishonest. I take exception at the suggestion that since I raise an argument, I am being "dishonest."

Thanks for being so noble as to point out what even my best friends have not pointed out prior to this... That because I have disagreed with the supposition that video games do not present any behavioral compromise, I am, by definition "dishonest."

As for your logic -- I can see, you have not attempted to look at what I have presented and have only decided to find fault in the way I have chosen to present my argument.

I am asking a simple question -- Is there any evidence that supports YOUR belief? Is there one shred of proof that will make me come round to your way of thinking? If that is some sort of dishonest question, I guess we have little to discuss.

Saying that "I watched Mighty Mouse and I never tried to fly" is not going to convince me that there are not people out there who are more impressionable than you or I.

I was asked to present some scientific evidence that supported my conclusion, people can be manipulated behaviorally by performing rote exercises... i.e. playing a video game. I am simply asking the same, that you conjure up some supporting evidence that says otherwise -- If this is trickery on my part than I apologize -- It is not meant to be so.

To say that I have some motivation, other than presenting my side of an argument, is not even close to fair.

I am not trying to detract from Shred's presented question -- that video games are way down the list of important issues. I totally agree with Shred -- This is not landmark territory. I am just pointing out that human behavior is easily manipulated if you know how to do the manipulating.

Thanks for citing the negative proof argument - Just because I ask for proof of the other side of an argument does not mean I have some dark side, driven to be correct, motive... I just want the scientific evidence that suggests what I have said is not correct.

[realisticphish]

27. the problem there

is that you're reversing the burden of proof.

"I just want the scientific evidence that suggests what I have said is not correct."

You simply CANNOT prove a negative. I have no idea if your hypothesis is true or not because i haven't seen any empirical studies. But the critic has no responsibility to prove you wrong. You have to prove yourself right.

[China_cat]

20. Try these

http://www.military-training-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=665
" With massive improvements in graphic technology, the video game industry has produced shooting, flying and fighting games that look so real they can be used as actual combat training. Off-the-shelf video games can be modified for military use for less than $200 according to some reports. One such example is a game called Spearhead that was evaluated by the Army Research Institute. This game was linked via a third computer to communication and command software Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2). All events that took place in the video game appeared on the FBCB2 system."

This one's a pdf but worth the read.
http://www.fradical.com/CPA_brief.pdf

[Solon]

22. And this is new?

Those links say nothing about how realistic games get influences behavior or makes people more violent. Besides, HOME video games have an intrinsic limit as to how realistic they can get. For example, while you can buy a yoke that can do a good simulation of an airplane flight stick, it doesn't simulate, realistically, all the controls of a cockpit, from the landing gear switches, to the choke, to the throttle. Unless you are a millionaire, you cannot afford an air force flight simulator, while the SOFTWARE is usually licensed from video game companies, it is also modified to take into account hydraulic lifts to change the orientation of the cockpit simulator, program in all cockpit controls, and to make it even less forgiving than video games, to simulate real life.

This isn't new, look up the arcade game Battlezone, made by Atari, it simulate tank combat, in 3D, back in the early 1980s, and was licensed to the military for combat simulation. The fact that the military uses such technology isn't a condemnation of it. Hell, this technology could be applied to, as an example, driving simulations for driver's education classes, it would be loads better than the current "videotape on tracks" simulations they ran when I went to such classes. How the technology is applied is what matters, the most your links state is that video games are used in simulations that simulate combat simulations. That's simply a condemnation of the military, not of video games.

Should we blame the OK city bombing on books?

[endarkenment]

24. Uh - another argument I didn't make.

The OP's assertion was the military "uses video games to break the combat troops' inhibition against killing", not 'the military uses virtual reality simulators for training'. One assertion is obvious and documented the other isn't.

[YOY]

13. I've been gaming since I was a kid

I've slaughtered millions digitally...maybe billions...hell for a few games of galactic conquest I'm in the trillions department of wholesale slaughter.

I'm a pretty peaceful guy. Hell, I'm not just using that avatar because I think it looks cool. I also have an extreme aversion to violence. The only thing I get kill happy about are roaches...something tells me that has nothing to do with video games.

I find a lot of the criticism coming from people who have never gamed in their lives. I wonder the psychological effects of full contact sports and wonder if the military 'endorses' them as well...

BTW America's Army blows... Gamers don't care if it's free or not if it still bites the big one.

[acmavm]

1. Then this one better damn well be at the head of the list

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1350108

[Zynx]

2. Listen, I played hundreds of violent video games as a kid.

I never once got the urge to shoot anyone. The idea that it is video games and not failed parenting that is responsible is absurd.

[Ian David]

3. Are they looking into THIS one????

Mega-church minister linked to paramilitary video game (Updated)
by jhutson
Mon May 29, 2006 at 05:33:30 PM PDT

Originally posted on Talk to Action as "The Purpose Driven Life Takers."A new Christian video game evokes 911.

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission - both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state - especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice. You have never felt so powerful, so driven by a purpose: you are 13 years old. You are playing a real-time strategy video game whose creators are linked to the empire of mega-church pastor Rick Warren, best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life.

The game, slated for release by October 2006 in advance of the Christmas shopping rush, has been previewed at video game exhibitions, and reviewed by major newspapers and magazines. But until now, no fan or critic has pointed out the controversial game's connection to Mr. Warren or his dominionist agenda.

Time magazine has described Mr. Warren as one of the nation's most influential Evangelical Christian leaders. He describes himself as a "stealth evangelist" and describes his training programs as "a stealth movement, that's flying beneath the radar, that's changing literally hundreds, even thousands of churches around the world." He claims that he has sold tens of millions of copies of The Purpose Driven Life by developing a worldwide network of pastors.

More:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/29/203330/248

[Zynx]

6. Hmmm...A game that advocates killing me(a moderate Catholic).

Well, I suppose I can't complain that much since I've played games that have US soldiers pitched against Iraqis, North Koreans, Russians, Chinese, etc... There hasn't been a game yet that specifically targeted me.

[Ian David]

8. More importantly, it targets CIVILIANS in NEW YORK! n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. That's ok, the DHS says New York isn't a terrorist target

Why else would they cut security funding to NY by 40%?

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. I'm worth more points that you are!

I'm a gay atheist who "believes" in evolution and the scientific method, has been a safer sex educator, and holds memberships in the ACLU and American Humanist Association. I used to follow Wicca.

Killing me should earn six, seven times the number of points as killing you. :hi:

[RedStateShame]

4. Finally...

an issue Joe Lieberman can be excited about!!!:puke:

[acmejack]

7. Thank God!

I was losing sleep over the prospect that this scourge would go unaddressed while the Congress dillydallied about with some minor issue like the deficit, or war and piece, or election integrity, or...

[spuddonna]

17. Wow, I'm so glad that they're attending to this critical issue...

:sarcasm:
I know the Congress is looking out for me! No violent video games (unless it's the ones the govt makes!), no gay marriage, and stop that G**damn flag burnin'!!

I know THOSE are the most important things I can think of to deal with!

Who needs health care, increases in veterans services, a raise of the minimum wage, their hometown rebuilt (New Orleans), new container scanning in ports, or a working economy!?

:wtf: When are people going to wake up...

[monarch]

21. I don't have a strong opinion about this issue

other than my strong distaste for the way our elected representatives waste time. I do think, however, that a casual reader of this thread might easily think that violent people are either drawn to or created by violent video games. The anger level here is extremely high.

[Solon]

23. We are against stupidity and wasting everyone's time on this...

issue. I cannot believe you equate anger with violence, its HOW people handle anger that matters, NOT that they are angry at a first amendment issue.

[Cocoa]

26. our kids' destructive energy is being wasted

they could be killing real people, but their violence is being dissipated uselessly on video games. We must put an end to this.

[Doctor_J]

28. Hmm this has the potential of bringing Hil & Hatch together

:scared:

[Ciggies and coffee]

29. Is this a message to the industry?

Are they not sending enough campaign contributions?

[Rocknrule]

30. If people concentrated on putting a stop to bullying

instead of something trivial like videogame violence, Columbine might have been the last school shooting this country ever saw