Working out aggression by games is a recognised way of dealing with internal anger and frustration. I'd try to argue that they can provide a useful safety valve.
Better to shoot someone in a game THAT YOU KNOW IS A GAME than act out the fantasy for real.
Children watch Tom and Jerry which is ultra violent but they know the difference between violence in cartoons and real life. learning that difference is an important part of growing up ... etc etc etc
Violent video games only affect people who need some real help. Society, instead of taking responsibility in dealing with these people, blames it on videogames.
At least in the US, it's generally the liberals who tend to want bans on things like that. The conservatives only get interested if there's sex in the game.
Anyway, saying that violent PC games have no effect on kids is a ludicrous assertion IMO. Of course they're going to have some effect, we just don't really know what and how much.
So I'll just give a few fudged facts and opnions passed off with facts and be done with it.
--------
I'm simply using the ones supporting my positions, and twisting and fudging things to suit my position.
--------
He said that lying in a speech was an ancient tradition and I could use it if I wanted to. As long as I present a good arguement regradless of its truth it doesn't matter.
No, I just had to make a pun at the typo in the topic title Of course, I can't say anything certainly. Also! Someone said that people who watch more violent tv series and such become more violent.. The door works both ways, you know.
Silver: I like the text of your speech a lot. If you deliver it as it is written, you should do well.
Col: Good point about the aggression release there!
I still remain undecided on the issue. I believe it really could be argued either way, as Silver's final comment from JC points out. Personally, I would encourage my kids to get with some hard physical contact sports to release aggression. At least they'd remain fit and healthy, wouldn't subject their tender little brains to all kinds of pulp violence and they'd have less chance of finding CFC most likely too!
I'd say that my psychology is stronger that Aristotle's catharsis. The urge to do violence is available in all of us (it's an evolutionary advantage), but the conscious part of the brain can get 'stronger' at suppressing the urge. By underdeveloping this control, we are reducing the likelyhood that it can be controlled.
As well, I can speak from personal experience that violence in video games does increase the likelyhood of committing violence. If only because of the feedback mechanisms. By associating violent urges (even illusionary ones) with pleasure, you're giving positive feedback to those urges. I'm not saying that we can't control those urges, and a normal person learns to control those urges quite nicely as they age, but glorifying violence does hurt the process.
I think they can have an effect if the level of realism and brutality is high. This effect, imo varies from person to person, some people are attracted, some are dispised. But in that games are not different from films and they should be treated the same way. (Replacing blood with oil and humans with androids to get a 14+ instead of a 16+ rating like they do in Germany is a kind of stupid, though)
The more abstract the game the less effect it will have, I didn´t turn megalomanic despite having played strategy games from the age of 12.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.