🚀 go-pugleaf

Couldnt agree more with that Lancer's post.  I hqave just finished doing a
Psychology degree. My course dissitation was on Television - Violence causal
link.   The 'new technology reason' is the essential conclusion I came up
with.  There is no actual evidence that Television causes violence (in fact
it is probably beneficial to children), but it is blamed for it - just like
radio was before it.   The trend has just moved on to computers as they are
the new technology, and as with all new technologies, those who have the
ability to make an opinion (i.e. journalists etc.) are older and do not
understand and fear it.   In time it will move on from computer games to
virtual reality (cliche'd I know, but that is the logical step for
entertainment to go).

Rob

Justin Liew <jzl...@NOSPAMsfu.ca> wrote in message
news:3828B724.FD71CC9F@NOSPAMsfu.ca...
> Well, for someone who didn't have time to fill out the whole survey you
sure did
> write a lot of interesting points!  Thanks for the input.
> Justin
>
> Lancer wrote:
>
> > Justin, I don't have time to fill out the whole survey but thought I'd
share
> > this.
> >
> > violence in media linked to violence in life.
> >
> > every time in history this last century when their has been a new
> > technology, said technology has been blamed for problems in society at
that
> > time.
> >
> > During the elisabethan period the theatres in london were considered a
> > public menace displaying lewd and licentious conduct to the people.
> >
> > early cinema was considered a corrupting medium for impressionable
women.
> >
> > rock and roll was considered a bad moral influence on youn gpeople in
the
> > 50's.
> >
> > Punk rock was ditto for the 70's
> >
> > accessibility to video nasties ditto in the 80's
> >
> > computer games in the late 80's early 90's
> >
> > internet ditto in the late 90's
> >
> > see what I'm getting at. rather than take responsibility for their
actions,
> > society like the blind sheep that it is transfers these fears and
worries on
> > to an easy target whatever that may be as a means to alleviate fears and
> > responsiblity.
> >
> > How many people see on TV, criminals saying I watched a video nasty, or
I
> > blame my life on my parents. all the time is this overriding background
> > mentality to transfer responsibility onto someone or something else and
> > therefore shift blame from themselves.
> >
> > In an MTV society, playing the victim is becoming more commonplace, even
if
> > you are the perpertrator.
> >
> > blmaing something instead of yourself is purely weakness in character.
> > everyone is aware of what is right and wrong and using some device to
> > explain your actions only serves to weaken moral standards as enforcing
such
> > standards becomes less commonplace.
> >
> > how many nuts say god told them to do something? you don't see moralists
> > rushing out saying we should be banning the church and all things
associated
> > with it. it's a double standard. if someone says that you right them off
as
> > a nut, if someone said the same thing about a particular computer game
> > they'd rush to ban it.
> >
> > example the school shoutout this year. it coincided with the matrix in
the
> > cinemas. suddenly warners have to back pedal and decide not to release
the
> > film on video in case they get blamed for it's content in relation to
any
> > crimes in 'I'll sue you blind if you sneeze' USA.
> >
> > in the 70's priests said that if X heavy metal bands records are played
> > backwards they contain a message from the devil. now that's load of
> > bollocks. how many people would ruin a perfectly good record and record
deck
> > stylus to play a record backwards in it's entirety, yet because the
heavy
> > metal bands represent a form of music and advocate an alternative
lifestlye
> > to what the puritanical hypocritical church want they attempted to
discredit
> > it, the same thing is happening today with the internet and computer
games.
> >
> > (now I realise a lot of church people do a lot of good but how many have
you
> > found who are completely infelxible to alternative lifestyles and
> > viewpoints. The bible preaches tolerance yet it is rarely practised.)
> >
> > at a base level it is all about control. Mass media, computer games,
videos
> > are relatively uncontrollable. access is there to anyone who wants it.
> > therefore if it can't be controlled then it must be a corrupting
influcene.
> >
> > because more than ever the majority of people choose to remain ignorant
and
> > not to think for themselves, it allows a small minority to impose
sanctions
> > and controls on something that does not need controlling.
> >
> > just like a rifle, computer games by themselves are not the threat. they
are
> > merely a tool. A rifle can kill if it is used incorrectly. a statistic
can
> > be made to prove any point if the question that created it is pointed
> > enough. this in itself is not enough.
> >
> > jhuman self determination is the one thing that is uncontrollable and
the
> > enforcing of law is the only constant.
> >
> > until the 1880's and the victorian era there was no such word as
> > pornopgraphy in the dictionary yet the word is still in use and used to
> > describe something that was defined during a period of stringent moral
self
> > loathing for personal delectation. the definition has never been
adjusted to
> > reflect changing social moral standards yet we allow it's definition to
> > remain.
> >
> > just because computer games or violent films exist in no way makes this
era
> > of society more violent. because we live in a world of mass media then
> > crimes become more immediate because they are immediately reported, but
I
> > would bet you that a close look at statistics would show that this era
is no
> > more dangerous than any other.
> >
> > crimes happen, thats a fact
> > humans are infallible thats a fact
> >
> > anything else is just veneer as an excuse to shift repsonsibilities from
the
> > infallibility of man to something rarely in a position to defend itself.
> >
> > for reference I am
> >
> > English
> > over 25
> > a university graduate in Ancient History and Religious develpment
> > a graphics design artist working full time
> > I enjoy flight sims, doom type stuff, god sims, racing sims, strategy
sims
> >
> > Justin Liew <jzl...@NOSPAMsfu.ca> wrote in message
> > news:3828A73E.F31EEE2F@NOSPAMsfu.ca...
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >  I am a fourth year Computing Science student at Simon Fraser
University
> > > with the intention of working in the video game industry in the near
> > > future.  Because of this, a topic that greatly interests me is that of
> > > violence in video games and its effect on society.  I am currently
> > > writing an anthropology term paper on this topic, "Violence in Video
> > > Games", and would be interested in your input on this topic.  If you'd
> > > rather not participate that's perfectly all right and I'll understand.
> > > You have a choice to use your name or remain anonymous.  If you choose
> > > the latter, please indicate a nickname to be used if I reference any
> > > facts or statements you contribute.  Thank you for your time.  Please
> > > reply to this email and answer the following as you wish.
> > >
> > > List your 5 favorite games, and reasons why they are your favorite.
> > >
> > > Describe each game in one sentence.
> > >
> > > What factors do you think make games so popular? ie. What factors
would
> > > persuade you to buy a certain game?
> > >
> > > Would you let your children play your 5 favorite games?  Why or why
not?
> > >
> > > How does the perception of the impact of violence in games differ from
> > > that in other mediums? (ie. TV, movies, music).
> > >
> > > Do you think violence in computer games affects children/teenagers,
and
> > > to what extent?
> > >
> > > Do you think violence in computer games affects adults, and to what
> > > extent?
> > >
> > > Any other comments.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time,
> > > Justin Liew (please respond via email, and remove NOSPAM)
> > >
>
>
>