backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 88 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Feb 2 at 2:28 PM

Counter-Strike blamed as culprit for violence
Germany leads charge for EU regulation of violent games

European authorities met earlier this week to examine the area of violent video games. Germany, who currently holds the current six-month presidency of the EU, is leading the charge in the regulation of what it considers inappropriate content.

The German government has a long history on its harsh views on violent video games and is taking it upon itself to conduct a study of all the different national rules concerning video games to create a unified policy that all 27 members of the EU could put into place.

“A certain degree of linkage between the growing violence among the younger generation and the growing diffusion of violent games exists,” said Franco Frattini, the European Justice commissioner. “The protection of children cannot have borders.”

Although the wheels put into motion by the Unions latest activity could lead to an outright ban of violent video games, Frattini did clarify that bans would ultimately be up to the discretion of each individual country.

The examination by the EU of violent video games comes at a particularly sensitive time for Germany. In November 2006, 18-year-old high school student Sebastian Bosse went on a spree at his school in Emsdetten, shooting 37 people before killing himself. The spotlight of blame turned to video games when investigators found that Bosse spent most of his waking hours playing Counter-Strike.

While a specific schedule on potential video game bans has not been revealed, German Justice Minister Brigitte Zypries said that the first step the Union would take is to publish a publish a summary of game ratings for parents to review on the EU website.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good grief
By darkpaw on 1/25/2007 4:12:54 PM , Rating: 4
More nuts kill people in the name of religion, don't see them trying to ban that.

Nuts will always kill people, doesn't matter whether they focus their attention on religion, tv, video games, or anything else.

Might as well blame flowers for causing violence if some nut can't take his allergies anymore and goes on a murder/suicide spree.




RE: Good grief
By EODetroit on 1/25/2007 4:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
I think we should propose banning violent religions. Especially the ones that simulate eating of flesh and drinking of blood.


RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good grief
By Christopher1 on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good grief
By Ringold on 1/25/2007 5:02:40 PM , Rating: 4
Christianity may be on the wane but you seriously underestimate Islam. It's probably the only one that's growing more influential.

That's helped of course in no small part by a combination of poverty, low relative education and accompanying fanaticism, but still.

If you think it's got one foot in the grave, I welcome you to go over to the Middle East and try to talk some terrorists out of dieing for their prophet and to instead get a job. You'd be doing us all a favor. ;)


RE: Good grief
By thejez on 1/25/2007 5:25:41 PM , Rating: 1
islam is on the rise because more radical islamists are taking over countries and making the people "accept" islam... i think those are the NUTS we are trying to remove here...


RE: Good grief
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 5:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you fear Islam? You should fear terrorists (as with other criminals and people who want to harm you), but there is nothing to fear in Islam itself.

There are lots of Christian criminals walking around the streets of America, and I don't think you fear Christianity as a result, do you?

The distinction between "radical" and "mainstream" Islam is my point. They are not one and the same.


RE: Good grief
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 7:56:50 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure I fear christianity in terms of personal safety, but I certainly fear it in terms of its ability to steer otherwise rational people into completely irrational positions.

Consider evangelicals--a fairly mainstream element in America. In the documentary "jesus camp", about evangelical camps for kids, we find children being taught that the reason they shouldn't care about carbon emissions or even the environment at large, is that the rapture is imminent. Now, how can you possibly argue with that? In place of pragmatic evaluation that is open to persuasion by means of evidence, you have ideologically rooted positions that are completely unshakable--that scares me.

While Islam and Christianity may very well differ in particulars, any sort of literal interpretation of the respective holy texts (which encompasses some amount of the "mainstream" I would imagine) is likely to retard progress.


RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 8:58:12 PM , Rating: 3
> "we find children being taught that the reason they shouldn't care about carbon emissions...is that the rapture is imminent..."

What utter rubbish. Its insane that anyone would invent a reason like that when there are so many real reasons to not fear carbon emissions.


RE: Good grief
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 9:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, always the heretic.

(Of course, I agree with you!)

I just chuckle some times when I think about people trying to stop global warming. Temperature fluctuations are going to happen regardless of our actions, just as it did before we were here, and just like it is going to happen after we are gone.


RE: Good grief
By JNo on 1/26/2007 6:28:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and I wish people would stop associating HIV with AIDS and smoking with cancer! fvcking losers!

/sarcasm off/


RE: Good grief
By Bonesdad on 1/26/2007 9:35:54 AM , Rating: 1
Good grief is right, try doing some reading and learn about science. Look at the world around you...the "fluctuation" we are now experiencing are so far beyond anything in GEOLOGICAL history that it is impossible it is only "natural". I'm not saying that humans are the ONLY cause of global warming, but a catalyst to be sure. It's a fact, get used to it.


RE: Good grief
By TomZ on 1/26/2007 11:09:05 AM , Rating: 3
So you're saying that today's fluctuation is off the charts? You're kidding, right? I live in Michigan, and portions of Michigan were once covered by glaciers. What do you think the average temperature was here when there were glaciers year round?


RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 2:27:23 PM , Rating: 3
> "the "fluctuation" we are now experiencing are so far beyond anything in GEOLOGICAL history ..."

The Earth has been both far hotter and colder in its past than it is today. Furthermore, some of the coldest periods were associated with the highest levels of CO2 concentration. In fact, during several points in the Phanerozoic era, CO2 levels were in the 3,000 ppm range (nearly ten TIMES higher than they were today). At least one of those periods coincided with the coldest ice age of the past 400 million years.

Finally, I have to point out that the sum total of human CO2 emissions are only a tiny fraction (~4%) of those emitted by natural sources. And those natural sources haven't just been emitting for a century...they've been doing so for countless millions of years.

Why not try reading some actual scientific journals, instead of the predigested, highly-inaccurate pap you get from the media? Here's a link to get you started-- a recent study showing how past temperature spikes in the Earth's history were actually far more common and violent than we originally believed:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315...


RE: Good grief
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 9:12:15 PM , Rating: 1
Extreme evangelicals are pretty scary, too, although they haven't taken to strapping bombs on themselves and detonating them to kill innocent citizens, to be fair.


RE: Good grief
By rykerabel on 1/26/2007 2:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
"Mississippi Burning"

look it up


RE: Good grief
By AncientPC on 1/29/2007 3:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Good grief
By JNo on 1/26/2007 6:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
1) dying
2) to instead get a job (split infinitive)
--> to get a job instead


RE: Good grief
By Tsuwamono on 1/25/2007 9:42:58 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. Catholicism has the most blood on its hands BY FAR.. probably even if you included all other religions put together it would still be able to hold a few million bodys over them.

Good job Pope! now go condem violence, we all believe you as an ex-nazi and the head of a religion who killed millions with their own private ARMY and a little genocide called The Crusades.

Dont forget Mr Adolf, what a great Christian he was, Killed all those jews real good.

In my opinion religion is no different then a cult.

And i blame religion for us not living on mars by now. They heald us back 900 years. Thanks guys!


RE: Good grief
By Masterrer on 1/26/2007 1:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
So true, I agree with you 100%.


RE: Good grief
By Lakku on 1/26/2007 2:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
Lets not bring the crusades into this and instead focus on things such as the Inquisition. Or, if we are to discuss crusades, let us not forget the massive spreading of Islam by military force and into Europe, before being thwarted by the good ol Frenchie Charlamagne.


RE: Good grief
By bigpimpatl on 1/26/2007 9:03:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And i blame religion for us not living on mars by now. They heald us back 900 years. Thanks guys!


Ok c'mon how you can say that? The Ancient Greeks and Romans surely believed in religion. I don't even have to list the things they contributed to society. The Persian empire produced some of the finest poets, doctors, and historians for their time, and they followed several religions. Heck, even Islam at its peak contributed so much in algebra, geometry, architecture; our numbers come from them! Saying that religion has hampered us is IMO foolish. If anything, religion has pushed the envelope and tested our boundaries of the great questions of what is god, and does he exist?

A trend in all these empires is that these people were well-cultured and believed in something, whether it was some spirit or god or goddesses, whatever.


RE: Good grief
By TheLiberal on 1/29/2007 6:16:55 AM , Rating: 3
Well, as one example...

During the Dark Ages, the catholic church branded anything that disputed their dogma as heresy for a period of several centuries. That stopped virtually all scientific progress.

To quote a good show: "They didn't call them the 'Dark Ages' because it was dark."


RE: Good grief
By BladeVenom on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good grief
By thebrown13 on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 5:42:34 PM , Rating: 5
Religion = good for me. I've voluntarily chosen a moral code to live by, and it is generally passive and non-aggessive. It's that Catholicism you are all bashing. Yeah, so it often flies in the face of logic. So what. That's my issue, not yours. I pick my dogma, you pick yours. My point is that a personal passive moral code, whether it be religiously motivated or not, CAN be a positive thing when living in a society.

I'm trying to figure out how my being Catholic harms anyone else, or warps my interaction with the rest of society? I'm not out causing mayhem, or civil disorder, or social chaos. I'm not persecuting my fellow man. Don't make yourselves look stupid by bashing something to no point and for no reason other than self justification or hollow malice.


RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 6:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "I'm trying to figure out how my being Catholic harms anyone else..."

As long as you stay away from the voting booth, it doesn't. Not that Islam is any better, of course...no religion has enough confidence in itself to not attempt to enforce its tenets through government action.


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:37:15 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks for the try..but I VOTE secularly. Libertarian mostly, actually. My catholicism doesn't extend beyond my person. I'm out to save myself, and if you like my example, then you'll ask me what I believe. I'm not out to ASK or MAKE someone else think or believe like I do with regards to faith, ESPECIALLY in the voting booth. I wouldn't want anyone doing the same to me. To each his own, live and let live...

I don't appreciate you telling me I shouldn't vote based on your assumptions on how I think and behave since I told you I'm catholic. Do you stereotype everyone like this?


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, you will have to work hard to find someone that is a stronger civil libertarian than I am. Check out other things I post on. As a civil libertarian, I just don't like people also threatening to stomp out my religion also. I'm not trying to stomp out your secularism...


RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 9:01:35 PM , Rating: 5
> "you will have to work hard to find someone that is a stronger civil libertarian than I am...I'm not trying to stomp out your secularism... "

Then if we ever meet, I'll shake your hand and buy you a beer. You are, though, a rather rare individual among the religious set...a fact you probably realize.

By the way, if we meet on a Sunday, we'll have to forgo the beer. They're not legal for sale here then...thanks to all the Christians who don't compartmentalize their religion from their voting.


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/26/2007 10:24:26 AM , Rating: 2
You gotta deal. My view is it would be hypocritical for me to insist, by any means, that someone believe what I do, because I wouldn't want someone to insist the same thing for me. Live and let live is the best philosophy, Frankly, if all religions would make that a basic fundamental tenet, and not worry so much about conversion (especially involuntary ones that are inherently insincere anyways) then we should all be able to get along rather nicely. All it requires is people be confident in their personal faith or beleif system, and respectful of other's.


RE: Good grief
By oTAL (blog) on 2/2/2007 2:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
What a great debate between the both of you...! I really had second thoughts about replying since all the uprating I made to the posts will be gone due to DT's rating system :(
Still, I believe a little praise is a lot more worthy than just a number.
What really made me tick was... beers not being legally sold on Sundays? Wha-? Is that in the US? Isn't your country supposed to be the land of freedom?
Unless someone could explain to a VERY large portion of the population how something like that could hurt society as a hole, that would be SO impossible in Europe...
I could imagine extreme situations where it would be illegal to sell beer on a festival due to the large amount of traffic fatalities the previous year... and even that would generate uproar as it would be limiting the personal freedoms of responsible people. But that.... it's WAY far out... can't even imagine it in the western world......


RE: Good grief
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 8:32:41 PM , Rating: 3
I like your seperation of personal faith and politics, but I wonder if such compartmentaliztion doesn't automatically change it from religion to philosophy. This might sound pedantic, but I think it's important to realize that if everyone behaved as you, Catholicism wouldn't have been able to colonize minds across the world.


RE: Good grief
By Micronite on 1/25/2007 11:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Agree or not, these aren't my words.

From George Washington's Farewell Address, Philadelphia, September 17, 1796



RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2007 11:19:18 PM , Rating: 4
I'll see your one and raise you three:

I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth...

Thomas Jefferson, 1787.

All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Thomas Paine, from the Age of Reason.

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

James Madison.

Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it...

Ethan Allen


RE: Good grief
By Micronite on 1/25/2007 11:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
Geez Masher, you must have the fastest DailyTech comments trigger this side of anywhere.

I wasn't trying to create a battle of quotes (which you obviously seemed prepared to fight). Simply expressing that one prominent American, held in high-regard, seemed to think religion was important to society.

One day when we're dead, we'll figure out the truth. Unfortunately for you, if you're right, you'll never know.


RE: Good grief
By Lakku on 1/26/2007 2:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
He thinks it is important, but lets it be known that it is his opinion, and not fact. It doesn't seem to me that he is forcing anything on anyone, and even states that educated people may have the possibility of being morale without religion, though he himself doesn't personally think so.


RE: Good grief
By Chillin1248 (blog) on 1/26/2007 4:28:14 AM , Rating: 3
And to one up you replacing Christianity with Islam:

Winston Churchill - The River War (1899)

"The influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.


--------
Chillin


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/26/2007 10:29:21 AM , Rating: 2
Wow. Women as property of a man as an extension of slavery? I never pictured it that way before, but that is quite enlightening. The usual counterargument from Islam is that it is voluntary or for their own good, which is remarkably like one of the arguments that secessionist states used to try to justify african american slavery in the lead up to the american civil war. Islam is going to have to mature out of that eventually. Fortunately, I see in many places it has.


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/26/2007 10:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
Some of this is a little out of context, and the context is more complaining about the misuse or abuses of religion and the way it is practiced than that religion itself, in this case christianity, is inherently bad on the whole. These men were contending to keep a secular state.


RE: Good grief
By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 11:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
These old quotes are interesting. If taken at face value, many seem to be mired in the philosophical limitations of their times.

For example:

quote:
Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice


If we take this at face value, it sounds like Washington believes property and human rights are enforced by religious threats/beliefs, rather than state coercion. Maybe he's too refined to state the obvious, but I'm not. Group coercion has always been the root of "rights." Religion is at best a slight incentive that pales in the face of tangible violence (this includes, for example, imprisonment as punishment for perjury).

The latent proposition that morals are derived from religion is fairly easy to dispute on a case by case basis. In the case of Christianity we need only look at the Bible and ask whether or not we derive our morals from it, or project them on to it. If we agree with everything we see in the Bible we can't conclusively say we derive our morals from it, but we have no contradictions. On the other hand if we find morally objectionable material, we have good reason to believe we are projecting our morality (thus we have objections when the two don't reconcile). There are a few really offensive parts found in the old testament they I think establish the latter is the case (Richard Dawkins has cited these stories a zillion times, if you'd like I can post one or two for your perusal).

IMO though, this is just the lesser products of a great mind. There are plenty of such examples in history. Newton, perhaps the greatest Mathematician in history, devoted huge amounts of times to (now amusing) alchemical pursuits.



RE: Good grief
By Lakku on 1/26/2007 2:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
What, are you saying I can't turn lead to gold?


RE: Good grief
By sviola on 1/26/2007 7:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
I am not a religious person, but if you stop and think about the values of western civilization, they are based on the same morals in the bible:

1 - Killing is not allowed
2 - Stealing is not allowed
3 - Adultery is condemned
4 - Greed is condemned (unscrupulous people are not seen as nice in our society)
5 - Free will (tough most radical christians won't agree with this, the bible preaches free will, but as Newton's law, for each action is a reaction and if you don't pay here, you pay after death)

What I am saying, is that a culture (or civilization) that lived around 1800 years under christian influence has many of their moral values in it.

But many things happened during these years, and christianity has gone through changes (i.e.,Trento Council in the 1500's) which changed it to become what it is today (tough you might not like, the Catholic Church now is completely different from what is was 4 centuries ago).

The islamism is a much youger religion (started in the 9th century) and might face a few changes in the future (some are happening now, that's why you get a lot of radicals - they fear the change will weaken their power so they do all kinds of attrocious acts toi continue their control over people).

I know things are way more complicated than all this, but it's a very interesting topic.


RE: Good grief
By isaacmacdonald on 1/26/2007 12:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not a religious person, but if you stop and think about the values of western civilization, they are based on the same morals in the bible


Modern moral values of western civilization certainly have some representations in the bible, but I think it's clear that they are not "based" on the bible. The good book is littered with genocide, slavery, abysmal treatment of women, and draconian measures that few would have the taste for today.

A lot of people seem to have trouble beliving that morals could possibly arise from natural mechanisms, and thus go looking for divine or spiritual sources. It's perfectly fine to do so, but there's no particular need or justification for such attributions.


RE: Good grief
By TomZ on 1/25/2007 9:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
I also appreciate your independent thinking - it is what makes our country a good one. But masher2's point about the church's influence in politics is a valid one, although I don't see the Catholic church being the real problem in that case. You have to understand that, before the last two elections here in the U.S., you had a lot of people being told by their ministers how to vote. This was driven a lot by Rove, Bush, et al. and their strategy of getting "motivating" issues put on the ballots, and by the way, please vote Republican while you are voting away the rights of our fellow Americans.


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/26/2007 10:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to get technical, Democrat candidates reguarly campaign in minority churches, and have traditionally had a large following of catholics (though that has lessened in modern times as the secular humanist leftist have displaced them). Both sides do it. It's just that generally, WASPs have penetrated more deeply into the higherarchy of the Republican party. That's why libertarian is better :)


RE: Good grief
By masher2 (blog) on 1/26/2007 11:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
> "Democrat candidates reguarly campaign in minority churches, and have traditionally had a large following of catholics ..."

And lets not forget our political history. All the way up to the 1970s, the Democratic Party was *the* choice for those we call the "Religious Right" today. They began to migrate to the Republican Party in the 1980s.


RE: Good grief
By gramboh on 1/25/07, Rating: 0
RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 6:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
See above. My religion is personal. My social interaction is quite different. I'm not impractical. Another person jumping at the gun to sterotype me as an automaton.


RE: Good grief
By HaryHr on 1/26/2007 2:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
religion = bad ?

I would rather say people abuseing religion = bad


RE: Good grief
By AxemanFU on 1/25/2007 5:46:18 PM , Rating: 3
Can we propose banning secularism and atheism for their violent practitioners too? What kind of civil libertarianism is that?


RE: Good grief
By Merry on 1/25/2007 4:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
quite.

I dont think the EU will do anything in this case. I'm pretty sure such a ban would not be welcome in Germany, let alone the rest of Europe, particularly here in the UK. Its pretty much a non issue.


RE: Good grief
By thejez on 1/25/2007 4:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
you're assuming nuts are born and not created by society...if thats true maybe we could find the 'NUT gene" and solve the problem preemptively... of course the side effect of that would be no more reality TV....


RE: Good grief
By HaZaRd2K6 on 1/25/2007 4:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...of course the side effect of that would be no more reality TV....


Is that really such a bad thing?


RE: Good grief
By Christopher1 on 1/25/2007 4:45:58 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, most 'nuts' (killers, rapists) are not created by nature. They are people with high libidos (rapists) or simply people who have an urge to kill in higher measure that most others (something that all people used to have, and that was released through hunting and fishing).

Society exacerbates these conditions, by insisting that people with high libidos suppress their urges for sex in order to not offend other people, and by making people with urges to kill suppress those instincts as well.

Frankly, better for people to release their need to kill in video games, than in real life, which is what most people are doing.

You want to see where the REAL violence comes from: children being spanked (beaten in my opinion) by their parents, children seeing Mommy and Daddy fighting and beating each other, children seeing war movies on TV and getting the idea from them that killing people is acceptable.


RE: Good grief
By AlmostExAMD on 1/25/2007 5:48:29 PM , Rating: 1
"You want to see where the REAL violence comes from: children being spanked (beaten in my opinion) by their parents, children seeing Mommy and Daddy fighting and beating each other, children seeing war movies on TV and getting the idea from them that killing people is acceptable."

It's called life, Get a grip.
Take a look at statistics, My generation who was spanked ended up a lot better off compared to your soft approach these days which is letting children do what they want!
"Mommy and Daddy fighting", Haaa.
What you think it is only now that this happens, It has been going on since the dawn of time, Conflicts are normal in relationships, It helps to unleash the pressure in a small argument occasionally rather than letting it build up and then kill your partner or got to work and shoot people.
"children seeing war movies on tv etc etc", And who's responsibility is it to teach them right from wrong?
It is good to teach them the harsh realities of human life, War will be around from now to the end of time, I think it helps to watch tv and show them right from wrong,
A childs brain is not developed and needs to be taught these things, It also explains why in other countries children are taught to hate other cultures and grow up to be fanatical extremists, Obviously it is the parents responsibilty to teach a moral way instead of this!


RE: Good grief
By rykerabel on 1/26/2007 3:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Todays parenting ideals are raising entitlement minded victims.

The children are running our schools now. Its scary watching how teachers are too afraid to take control of their classrooms and are only able to try to "entice" the children to behave. Any child that is independently minded to not make that choice is abused with negative lables. Fact is, these independent children were the people who "cut down the cherry tree" etc and made this country great.

Only result is that independent children are forced to accept the lable of being "bad" and grow up believing that they are bad. So instead of being future leaders, they are made into future criminals.


RE: Good grief
By rykerabel on 1/26/2007 3:24:28 PM , Rating: 2
a good spanking and "don't do that again because that was a bad thing to do" will teach the child what not to do with immediate and apparent force and full concept of REAL consequenses WHILE NOT labing the child as bad.

leave off the physical consequense of a spanking and the child can just ignore it... and i've seen so many of these new age kids pretend to listen and then just completely forget the whole "talking to" immediately after.

Fact is: without non-abusive CONTROLLED spanking, so many parents resort to emotional blackmail which is emotional abuse and so very much worse.


RE: Good grief
By Dragen on 1/25/2007 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you're assuming nuts are born and not created by society...


Created by Society? I strongly disagree. It starts at a young age with the PARENTS. Society will always influence youth to do this or that, but there is such a thing as personal accountability. Don't give me this mumbo jumbo that because I live in a f*cked up society that i'm suddenly a psycho killer.

I was taught wrong and right at a young age. My own parents long ago, raised me to be a good man. And it's funny, I would sneak over to my friends house when I was 14 to play Mortal Kombat on Nintendo and I continue to play every video game I can get my hands on, and i'm not out stabbing and shooting people.

I'm sure as hell not a psycho killer. But see, that's just me. I know the difference between a video game and the real thing. Desensitized? Not even that, as I can't hurt a living thing. Life is a sacred and wonderful thing. I sound like im religious too, but i'm not that either.

Hmm gee, my PARENTS must have done something right.

Raise your f*ckin kids right, and the world will be a better place.


RE: Good grief
By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 2:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was going to post.

I think there's people out there predisposed to turning out crazy. I think things like violent video games don't help those with crazy tendencies, but don't cause it outright.

I love games about killing people and have for a long time. That's not going to change. The thought of ever acting out what I do in a game makes me physically ill. I don't think anyone would ever have the right to do what I do in a game, but it's just that, a game, so I think it's ok.

quote:
I'm sure as hell not a psycho killer. But see, that's just me. I know the difference between a video game and the real thing. Desensitized? Not even that, as I can't hurt a living thing. Life is a sacred and wonderful thing. I sound like im religious too, but i'm not that either.

Exactly what I was going to say word for word.

The biggest thing I must point out is that even if there is a larger increase of crazy people going out and killing people is, that these people are a tiny minority. Should no responsible decent minded people be able to relax and release frustration by blowing some heads off? I'd say no.

I really think banning violent games would likely hurt in short run for violent crimes. Maybe not murder because sane minded people don't kill people. But may increases in wife/child abuse due to people not being able to release violent frustration.


RE: Good grief
By Maximilian on 1/25/2007 4:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
Ban germany.... daft germany video game people, theres been killers and psychopaths since people could lift a club to hit eachother with! Just because theyve picked up a new hobby dosent mean germany should spoil it for the rest of us.


RE: Good grief
By Ringold on 1/25/2007 4:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
During the early 1800s in America, there was a fair share of violence. Most people outside of the larger cities in the North East hunted.

Since many violent people hunted, and some of the those same people turned their killing skills on humans, did we ban hunting? No. I think Masher has said it many times; correlation doesn't prove causation, or something to that effect. Counter Strike is merely the hop-scotch or the likes of a new generation.

Does Europe really have such weak social protections built in to their constitutions that such crap can even be discussed?


RE: Good grief
By Snuffalufagus on 1/25/2007 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 3
Are you trying to use the idea that 'hunting is violent' as a premise for your argument?

It kinda looks like you are saying that they hunted, and because they hunted, they were violent. In other words, anyone who hunts is violent as a fact.


RE: Good grief
By Ringold on 1/25/2007 5:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, not what I meant. People who hunt are NOT any more violent than the rest of us. Back then, though, these sort of people proposing this ban would likely draw the connection that since people go out to the forest and slaughter small animals that maybe that has something to do with it when one or two nut jobs comes in to town and slaughters small children. There is no connection. Just like their current attempt to link gaming to violence. It is merely something that this generation likes to do. It has no more to do with violence now then hunting did in the past.


RE: Good grief
By Snuffalufagus on 1/25/2007 6:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
Got it, and after reading the post again I read it that way, not sure what I was reading differently before.

Besides, we all know NOT playing violent games is what leads to real killing, violent games actually prevent it. Without games as an outlet all those anxieties keep building up, and then one day.... :)


RE: Good grief
By borowki on 1/25/2007 4:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
I say we need a ban on scheisse videos. The consequence of imbalanced folks being influenced by them is too disturbing to imagine.


RE: Good grief
By Moishe on 1/25/2007 8:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
ridiculous.
What you blame religion for is simply human nature. Religion is not the problem, PEOPLE are the problem because people tend to fight and kill for their own interests.

Even people who don't have/believe in a god are inherently selfish. So as soon as you can rid the world of selfishness, you've got world peace.

Good luck with that.


RE: Good grief
By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 2:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
Gotta second this. It's people, only way to stop things like violence is to get rid of the people. Good solution?

I think ideas like this should only be considered if a high degree of causality can be proven. Such as 10% of people who play counter-strike will go out and kill people for certain.

Considering even if you could prove this as the real cause for killing people (which is highly doubtful) it would be more like .001%. Fact is, these people likely have a whole other slew of problems/mental issues that are much larger contributors to cause.


RE: Good grief
By Samus on 1/26/2007 4:12:54 AM , Rating: 2
LOLz

This coming from the same people that started world war II just 70 years ago.


Most of these events come from bullying
By Christopher1 on 1/25/2007 4:49:54 PM , Rating: 3
Has anyone noticed that most of these 'school killings' are connected with bullying or ostracizing of children by other children?

Seriously, every time I have seen one of these children being profiled, it says "he was a loner" or "he was bullied by other kids", like he really wanted to be. Most of the teachers, friends and others said that he tried to make friends, but people ostracized him because they 'got a bad vibe from him'.

Frankly, those are the children that most need the companionship of others! Those who are giving off that 'bad vibe' and need friends, teachers and other adults to spend more time with them in order to help them get that 'bad vibe' out of them.




By Ringold on 1/25/2007 5:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if clinical depression didn't play an occasional role, too. That's something entirely beyond the childs ability to control. Not that easy to recognize (and admit), either.


By gramboh on 1/25/2007 6:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is the right answer. How can any rational thinking person look at violence in entertainment instead of the underlying social issues of the offender? Insanity.


By isaacmacdonald on 1/25/2007 8:18:23 PM , Rating: 2
I agree--in fact the same thing can be said about a lot of workplace violence. If you're interested in a skilled treatment of this idea checkout "Going Postal" by a guy named Ames I believe.

Anyway, it may be the specific methods of violence may be borrowed from pop-culture, but it seems to me that the alternative (given a ban on something like counter-strike) is just likely to be mass violence of a slightly different flavor.


By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 2:58:07 PM , Rating: 2
Perfect point to these types of things.

First thing media points out is excessive playing of Quake.. or some other game. I want to know how the parents didn't notice their kid was actually able to acquire automatic/large clipped semi-auto guns and create their own pipe bombs (Columbine as example).

Back to school thing. I had a teacher that literally admitted any jocks/sports players that show up to class get a C just so they don't get kicked off team due to academics. Same teacher would sit by while other less popular kids were made fun of, and on occasion joined in (not that he said as shocking things as kids, but his comments were still very wrong and out of place).

On the good side I also had a teacher that literally tried to teach character to us kids. He gave us examples of doing what is right even if you gain nothing, and no one notices to say "good job". (6th grade teacher, needless to say perfect age to make a big impact and he did on me.)

I guess my point being I can't believe that teachers are so awful, or scared of what might happen to them that they won't do the right thing. I can't say what I would do if I was in their situation, but a reason I didn't consider becoming a teacher is because I know I would be fired due to reaction to bullys (not that I'd beat them, that's wrong, but I would certainly have choice words that school board wouldn't appreciate.)


Why, oh why...
By SuinusLatinus on 1/26/2007 1:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why, oh why, can't a simple rating system be enough? I don't want a government or a clueless politician to decide for me what is or isn't violent. What's violent for him may not be so to me!

I'm as pacifist as it gets but if, as an adult, I want to play some megagore fps or wathever, that's my business!

What's next? Ban violent books? If so, start with the bible! It has more than enough violence (IMO, your may think different but see, that's the beauty of it! We _may_ think diferent! WE! There's no need for a politician, with its own agenda and completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of videogamers are in 30 years range...).

If the intention is to protect children, then, use the same system that's in place for prn, or cigarettes, etc.

And it's already disturbed people that commit those crimes, like the kid in Germany. He didn't became violent because of the games. The games were an outlet for his angst.

before videogames there were already tragedies like those, you know?

Funny, one of the more violent and sadistic things that humans do is sports hunting and I never saw anyone linking that to psychopat behavior... If you think about it, there you are, you see an innocent creature going about its own business and BAM *headshot* (if he's lucky...). How come those politicians don't try to ban sports hunting?




RE: Why, oh why...
By CascadingDarkness on 1/26/2007 5:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
There is a simple perfect rating system. In the US atleast (not sure about your country of origin). I would hope people who ship international keep labels on, or that europe has something similar.

www.esrb.org

While using rating system is optional, since it isn't government mandated. Virtually every game developer applys for rating because basically every retailer requires an esrb rating on games they sell.


RE: Why, oh why...
By SuinusLatinus on 1/29/2007 10:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, there is also one in Europe. My question is why do the politicians think it isn't enough?? It's the parents and the retailers that have to control who buys what, IMO. I mean, if a kid goes to store and tries to buy some xxx rated stuff, do they let him? No, so the ratings system works!

And yes, violent crime ratings are lowering, at least in the US and Japan, countries where videogames have a bigger presence in society. But facts and plain truth aren't what interest these "concerned" politicians...

I would like some big group linked to videogames (Nintendo, MS, Sony + publishing/studios) once and for all get that message trough to the masses... it would good for them, I think and maybe those "concerned" politicians would shut up.


RE: Why, oh why...
By CascadingDarkness on 2/1/2007 2:24:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, all politician bull to get votes for cracking down on an exaggerated problem. Check these great links that show how IL governor got and unconstitutional law passed and stuck state with lawsuit bill.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5433
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5105


No matter what subject on DT
By rudy on 1/25/2007 6:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
Somehow everyone turns it into a chance to preach about their belief, a bunch of people trying to convert everyone to the agnostic religion another guy claiming video games will control their violence and another talking about parents spanking their kids. All of them of course stating it as fact.




RE: No matter what subject on DT
By bigpimpatl on 1/26/2007 9:23:32 AM , Rating: 2
hahahahahhaha man that really made my morning =)


FFS
By DonkeyRhubarb on 1/25/2007 7:12:20 PM , Rating: 4
Games can influence people that are pre-conditioned (ie, have a current susceptible condition), to do strange things.

However, these people can be influenced from anything, seeing as this is already in their mental psychie.

God help theese people, they do not choose to think like this....

All the ban of violent games would do is restrict freedom of everything and deprive the average person of an enjoyable time at GTA.

Banning these games is not the answer in this case. A good health system that works and one that recognises and helps people with problems / issues is whats needed.

Mike




Its not games
By TSS on 1/25/2007 10:50:35 PM , Rating: 4
the reason they blame games is that they wouldn't have a job if they didn't. trying to ban a game, or restrict anything from society at that political level, takes months and months of work. untill either a judge says it can never be done or it is done, after which the new enemy will be sought for.

the reason they do *that* is because they can't control why it really happens: its succeptable people placed in unlucky situations which make a mental condition worse. meaning there are normal humans, there are humans with a condition which are succeptable but aren't bullied or abused enough to trigger it, and the last catagory which is screwed at birth, screwed in life, and screwed when the cops find him.

if humans wheren't violent, we wouldn't enjoy stuff like the simpsons, family guy or jackass. i know some people say "i dont enjoy that" well even america's funniest home video's had violence (a child falling off a swing, a chair breaks and couple falls over) allthough nobody gets seriously hurt. if there was something wrong with us, we'd all be psycho killers. the goverment tries to limit the rights of the majority, thats you normal people, to move more psycho killers in the "group that was never triggered".

i have a mental condition called PDD-NOS, which basicly means i hvae normal emotions but they are much heavyer then a normal person. i cant laugh normally, only loud. same goes for crying. now imagine what that does to anger. hold that thought. now imagine what that does to anger, when you've been bullied the majority your life. hold that thought. now think about that anger, with your parents fighting from age 7 till they die, my mother at least. hold that thought, almost there. now imagine that anger when you havent had alot of friends simply because your a tad different, a little wierd perhaps. if your still holding that thought, im about halfway through. no need for the rest im sure.

now, i havent snapped simply because its in my character not to. im very logical in my thinking, and going through something rough, if you can pull through, it'll make you tough aswell. but i've come close to twisting somebody's neck more times then i'd ever wished for. and i can very well imagine there are those, who do snap. it's not nature, nor is it nurture, it's a combination of both. people who have difficulty controlling emotions should be guided and counseled, and that way games can be a great guidance instead of a burden. i dont belive in god but i swear to him anyway, i've played video games all my life and if i didn't have those as an outlet, a way to get rid of frustration by simply shooting annoying 13 year olds Virtually, i might have been behind bars for quite some while now. definatly if all i had was that crap they dare produce on television these days.

just to top off a long and negative list, here's the Benifits i got from a life of gaming (there are? yes there are!):

- i'm really fast in real life as well as with my mouse. if something drops i can catch it just as fast as my friend who has kickboxed several years and done other sports, i'm real skinny and nearly dont burn any energy at all.
- i'm dutch by nature, though i've gotten compliments that my english is nearly flawless. guess how that happened. present piece excluded, its really late here.
- because of my fast reaction time i'm impossible to kill in traffic. when riding my bike it doesn't matter how fast i go, my reaction time is so short i can survive nearly everything. thats including almost riding into a big moving truck and stopping in time, dodging red light runners, and so on.
- i hear alot of sounds and i can pinpoint each one of them. afterall if somebody is walking to your back to shoot you you tend to try and avoid it.
- my knowledge of computers is extensive, try getting a game to work in dos that requires 8 meg with only 4 (my dad worked that one out, rather complicated :P). not to mention horsing around with drivers and software packages and updates and firewalls ot permit connections and such.
- considering my mental illness, i have trouble communicating with others because of emotions. i can feel differently about certain words then the rest of the world, which pretty much cripples a social life. on the internet, on msn, emotions don't count. its intellect, the way to form sentances, and emoticons to help deliver the message. this way, i've made lots of friends over the internet, as my emotional problems arent a issue, and intellect i got enough of. the more i was bullied in real life the more i was accepted on the internet.

i'm willing and able to look into any politician, or moral critic of games even jack thompson into the eye, and declare that violent games have saved me and have helped me control my anger, and if they take that away from me, i'll be worser off then ever.

but you never hear those things do ya. can't get on the news with something like this, afterall, it's not negative or violent or drama, so it wont sell.

we humans sure do love violence...




OMG
By edge929 on 1/25/2007 4:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not this crap again. The OP hit on the head. Let's ban any religion that's ever had a follower kill another human being. So that will leave like what, 1 religion left in the world that some guy in China practices.

Or how about we ban motor vehicles because they've certainly killed human beings. Oh wait, then the politicians wouldn't be able to get around and make more pointless policies. I mean, you have to assume these are older men/women who have never played Gears of War, let alone Mario Brothers. Of course they're experts on this.....




Violent video games a scapegoat...
By Vysion on 1/25/2007 6:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
The violent video games are just a scapegoat for the EU. If you read the article about the kid that went on a shooting rampage there was other things that contributed to his motivation other than violent video games. Also the article fails to mention anything about the parents, because why is it the parents fault for how children are raised these days? Society is always to blame, not that he was an outcast that liked guns and bombs, and fantasized about joining the army. When will parents be held accountable for raising thier own children?




video games cause violence -bs
By Sasuke on 1/26/2007 2:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/games/censorsh...

please go down to the graph lol pwned censor people

(of topic but rofl -We are sorry for the inconvenience but we've determined you have a low DailyTech rating and may possibly be a robot- pure lol)




Off-Topic
By nightdagger on 1/26/2007 8:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
So everybody has responded to the OP and not the article.

I think that in everything there are a few bad eggs. Some Christians may go on rampages, but most are normal, good people. Some Muslims may be terrorists but most are normal, good people. And in response to the people who think that most Christians are always on the prowl for people to convert, get a grip. Other than missionaries and the clergy, most Christians (at least that I know) try to convert people by showing them a good example.

In any case, though, the article linked to in the DT article showed a bunch of facts about CS that are blatantly wrong. You do not go down corridors killing as many people as possible. If you do that your team will lose pretty easily. The best way to play CS is to accomplish your objectives and kill any enemies on the way.




By Hoser McMoose on 1/26/2007 2:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
On all these talks about violent video games they always seem to point to these games as a reason for "rising violence" and then further point to these glorified examples (such as the one mentioned in the article) as proof of this.

But I always have to stop and ask, are violent crime rates even rising in Europe? I know in Canada, the US and Japan rates of violent crime have been DROPPING for the past 25 years, not rising. Comparing crime rates of 1982 (when video games were in their infancy) to today, a simple correlation would tend to suggest that video games DECREASE violence rather than increasing it!

Even if rates of violent crime are increasing in Europe, doesn't it seem like a bit of a stretch to blame it on video games when rates in North America and Japan are dropping? Violence in video games is fairly constant across regional divides, so if violent video games really do cause violence, shouldn't we see the same sorts of numbers EVERYWHERE that these video games are sold?




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki