look at this hard evidence!!

http://blogs.news.com.au/news/crime/index.php/news/comments/computer_violence_and_our_children/

farken main stream media at it again...

discuss

Same old bulls***.

Some study has found that kids are going bonkers over violent computer games, so lets write a huge article on how violent games are and how children have "lost it".

I use to get angry when i read the crap, now i just ignore it. I still can't believe people lable the majority due to a minority. But i guess that goes for most things in life.

people online and more importantly, alone/away from society, are naturally more aggressive, but it's not because of the games they're playing. i've seen kids get angry and violent at sports they're playing alone.

i won't explain the psychology of it here, but in short, the way the media are going about this is like throwing newspaper out of a bus window to keep elephants out of australia. and as there are no elephants roaming around in australia, the newspaper out the window must be working ... dah, it's so simple

ignore it, but be aware of it, so if the opportunity ever arises, you'll be prepared for any argument they throw at you

http://www.dundonaldscouts.org.uk/graphic/motto-logo.jpg

heh, im david from milton. i sent him an email on wednesday afternoon and he wrote the article based on that. we have had an email transcript and hes actually quite grounded and did look at everything open minded, but unfortuantely as he said all the medical journals point to that link

read the two david from milton posts, it sums it up pretty much. Its the defenders of games that are being the most stupid out of those posts

yeah quite grounded with no experience maybe. i've been playing violent games for over 15 years now, and i haven't been in a fight or even had an urge to fight or do anyone harm for over 7 years ... and even back then there was no urge to really do harm, just stupid school kid stuff that lead no where

where's their basis now? it's not the games, just like it isn't the guns. there are reasons why people do things, the games aren't desensitizing, those people are already in the zone to harm. so unless people start using the game cds to slice people up, there's really no reason to ban or even worry about games (unlike guns)

but thats the thing, the only argument gamers are putting forward is 'i turned out fine'

he didnt link violent games to crime, in fact he explicitly stated that there is no link made, he just said the studies show that there is a link between aggressive behaviour and violent video games

he also said this could easily be that violent video games attract violent people

and that violent video games are just played the most because they look cooler than the alternative being cartoony. they also have higher levels of competition due to the skill required to defeat an opponent doing something other than turning a few corners and adjusting your speed

you could get rid of the violence and people would still play these games i'm sure

my argument is that people have violent tendencies naturally and have shown signs of aggression and anger throughout history. at worst, all games are doing is pushing these people further in their solitude and nurturing the growth of their negative emotions, but that could happen with any solo activity where there is a desire to succeed, doesn't matter if it's violent or not. haven't there been inventors that did crazy things? i heard the guy that invented the roulette wheel killed himself because he couldn't beat his own creation

same goes for rap music, i remember hanging with some ethnic gangs back from high school that used to pride themselves on starting random fights ... even with 12 year olds, it was absolutely shocking, and these guys spent all their money on being gee'd up and looking 'pimp', so they hadn't even touched a video game before

once again, it's just the newspaper out the window thing to keep away elephants, coincidental and that's about it

all media has been looked at to cause violence/anti social behaviour and general bad stuff

violent video games are targeted because they have a level of interaction

im happy with the way gary hughes layed out his article and his responding comments, it wasnt sensationalist journalism like we are used to

unfortunately there isnt going to be a middle ground for quite a while, the media will generally be sensationalist, and gamers reactions will generally be over the top or just narrow minded, splitting the sides apart

video games make me angor

completely agree with tung

the games aren't desensitizing

how do you figure that dice?

myself, and many others, see blood in games all the time, but i still feel ill when i see a bad cut ... how do you not figure it jim?

I have to admit, after playing carmagedon it did cross my mind to run down pedestrians while I was actually driving...haha

myself, and many others, see blood in games all the time, but i still feel ill when i see a bad cut ... how do you not figure it jim?

because it's been _known_ for years, that the human brain does get desensitised by exposure. to see you come along and say "the games aren't desensitising" prompts the question "how do you figure that?"

it's kind of amusing that your grounds for that conclusion are that you still feel ill when you see a bad cut, particularly when you periodically make references to psychology as though you have some advanced experience in that field

Actually I remember seeing a story on the iraq/afghan war and american soldiers. There's waaaay less soldiers experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and getting affected by the violence as there has been in previous wars. And it showed all the US soldiers driving around on tanks with Dr. Dre playing through speakers and stuff. haha. Or was that compton?

Anyway, desensitization is a fact, everyone knows that.

A lot of 1st year science students would be a be wierded out at their first anatomy class, but quickly get used to it all.

I see a lot more agro on the football pitch than in computer games.

That's it!

BAN ALL SPORT!

but aggression is banned in sports, and thats why there is punishment for acts of violence on the sports field...

its not something that can be compared zynster

I wonder which football game you're watching zynster, that has more agro than computer games :)

MUTANT LEAGUE FOOTBALL

myself, and many others, see blood in games all the time, but i still feel ill when i see a bad cut ... how do you not figure it jim?

Studies show that the human brain doesn’t really associate cartoony blood and gore with real blood and gore. Studies do show however that the human brain associates violence in any of its forms.

Some toss c*** linked video games to those 12 deads***s who made the DVD down in Werribee. That's pushed the boundaries of blaming computer games way too far.

I play sims!

Quick obes is getting desensitised to renovating houses!

Violent games desensitise me to violence in video games, which my rational brain can easily differentiate against real world violence.

edit:

This one is the best:

This experiment examined the effect of video-game violence on co-operative decision making. Participants playing violent games were significantly more likely to choose to exploit their partners than those playing non-violent games. “These findings suggest that playing violent video games may undermine pro-social motivation and promote exploitive behaviour in social interactions.”

These guys should play worms and learn the true meaning of exploitive behaviour.

last edited by Thundercracker at 12:24:27 27/Oct/06

it was one of the guys that posts comments that linked video games to the werribee guys on wednesday, not the blog writer himself.

he also said this could easily be that violent video games attract violent people

lmao.
So, does this mean that the army attracts violent people? [That's rhetorical]

Should I be concerned that these naturally agressive people are given firearms then if they have an agressoin tendency..
Ohhh but the training the training the training!

Society 'trains' civilians what is and isn't socially acceptable behaviour as well (dice could actually be onto something ho hum).

The problem isn't the "games" or people who are naturally agressive/violent being attracted to those games, it's the social seclusion and lack of interaction.

Don't you think its a little narrow minded to assume a study tells the truth tung?

Just because a few studies have linked agressive behavior to violent video games does not mean you can just assume anyone who plays the games are violent. Thats the problem, the media grab a hold of things like this and preach that everyone playing a computer game must be a psycho! Thats what grinds my gears.

yeah, jim at his usual brilliance of failing to understand the actual point unless it's spelled out completely to him ... read some of the replies by others here, they know where it's at

at no point did i say that you can't be desensitized in general, of course the human brain does get used to seeing what it does, and if i were shooting people all day in real life, i'd no doubt get desensitized to it eventually, but for someone like me it'd take many years and would put me on the brink of insanity as i go against every fibre of morality in my body (understand how that works?)

all i was saying was that there's a pretty big difference between violence in games and violence in real life. i can see people hit in the head by shovels as if it's no big deal in games, but even if someone throws a punch in real life i get a bit uneasy and worry about what's going to happen. hell, i could watch people being cut up and torn apart all day in games and not even flinch, but as i said, just a cut in real life gets an ill response from me

you think it's 'amusing', haha, you are the pot, jim, damn that's funny. maybe you should give me a little more respect? just because your boyfriends on here think i'm wrong about the breasts issue doesn't mean i am, and i'd like to see any of them put down an actual logical argument against what i was saying, instead of "you're a fag" and "give your girlfriend to me so i can treat her right" (hah, like they actually could)

honestly, i hope those who said stuff like that realise how retarded that was

oh and loki is also picking up on another point -- that it's society (which consists of individual families), their beliefs and so on that would be a greater influence and therefore more of a problem here than games. add in seclusion where the subjects in question can release all their emotion and get away with it, and you now have an emotional warrior in training as they exercise their negativity without shame

edit: pot, not kettle. argh.

last edited by dice at 15:05:32 27/Oct/06

Violent games desensitise me to violence in video games, which my rational brain can easily differentiate against real world violence.

The continual focus of violent and aggressive acts, of whatever the sort, desensitises people to other forms of violence, even if there is no direct relation between the two. It’s basic psychology, and if I wasn’t at work – or better yet, if I was still at uni – I’d drag up some research on the topic. It’s pretty interesting and very well researched.

Of course, what - I think - most of you are saying is that being desensitised to violence doesn’t mean that you are no longer a well adjusted member of society. You’re still able to make rational decisions and for the most part, you’re not compelled to go beat people up, and that’s true. Being desensitised to violence doesn’t equate to being more violent. Which has a lot of research that backs that argument up.

Also, does anybody know if dice is retarded? When I started reading his post it just looked like someone was copying and pasting random words out of the dictionary, so I stopped. I don’t want to make fun of someone with intellectual challenges.

* an individual opinion means nothing against weighted research.
** yes, even yours.

Violent games desensitise me to violence in video games, which my rational brain can easily differentiate against real world violence.

No, I'm agreeing entirely with that. Typo, just because someone documents a lot on the topic doesn't mean they got it right. Even Stephen Hawking was proven wrong on an elaborate topic. Please, remember that before you call me retarded.

I'm part of the scene, I'm doing actual research and understanding exactly what's going on in my brain, whereas I don't know what the researchers have been doing, because they are quite clearly wrong on this one.

I'm not sure why you just called me a retard either (by asking if I was retarded and then mentioning the reason as to why you asked it), but I'd now like to meet you, just to watch you eat your own words. Don't talk it up to me unless you got a stronger basis than: "I'm too stupid to understand this guy, that must mean he's the retard."

Being desensitised to violence doesn’t equate to being more violent.

I agree with this.

But a number of the studies presented stated things like:

Media violence poses a threat to public health in as much as it leads to an increase in real-world violence and aggression.

In many cases they are arguing a direct link between violence and violent video games.

A few problems here. First, all the studies selected give one viewpoint. It would be interesting to see studies saying there is no link or providing the counter argument. Also, getting the basic abstract of the study really does it no justice. Taken out of context, it is a fairly vague statement. For example, that same abstract continues with:

A lab experiment showed that individuals low in video game violence exposure behave more aggressively after playing a violent video game than after a nonviolent game, but that those high in video game violence exposure display relatively high levels of aggression regardless of game content.

Does that mean they solve problems in the game with more aggression? Or that a few hours of half life 2 make them beat up their kids because they didn't eat their greens? How did they test their levels of aggression? In what circumstance was the aggression tested (in another video game, in real life?) Again it's all a bit vague.

you'll have to list the people who "know where it's at"


as for your claim that I missed the point - that's a riot, because it implies you think that your post I was replying to, WAS the point at all. sadly, the actual point flew over your head which is why you posted what you did in the first place. also, at no point did I claim you were saying that people can't be desensitised in general *boggle*

besides, all I did was ask you how to came to the conclusion you did, and your answer wasn't even close to supporting that conclusion. how on earth is that disrespectful?



I nearly spat my drink all over the screen when I read this gem:

I'm part of the scene, I'm doing actual research and understanding exactly what's going on in my brain, whereas I don't know what the researchers have been doing, because they are quite clearly wrong on this one.

try researching and understanding why you have such a strong need to convince yourself that you're intellectually superior to your chosen peers, and what it actually is that you're missing that drives this need, who would be the most obvious suppliers of this need and why they may have neglected to cater to that need for you - and be honest to yourself

there's probably worse ways for you to find out how see-thru your facade is than being told outright on a forum, so consider it a favour

Typo, just because someone documents a lot on the topic doesn't mean they got it right. Even Stephen Hawking was proven wrong on an elaborate topic. Please, remember that before you call me retarded.

I didn’t call you retarded because you disagreed with people or the research; I called you a retard because of the way you wrote your paragraph. Sorry, I’ve been reading technical and design manuals all day, it just took a long time for my brain to process your statements as they are poorly written.

Also, you haven’t proved anything; you used personal opinion as a counter point for a researched theory. Researched theory, unlike personal opinion, can be tested in repeatable circumstances.

I'm part of the scene, I'm doing actual research and understanding exactly what's going on in my brain, whereas I don't know what the researchers have been doing, because they are quite clearly wrong on this one.

1: Actively participating isn’t researching.
2: Nobody knows exactly what goes on in peoples brains, including their own.
3: You know less than academics who focus on that stuff.
4: You’re wrong.
5: Most researchers who focus their research on or around games are in fact passionate gamers. Why else would they dedicate their lives, and their professional career, on the subject?

I'm not sure why you just called me a retard either (by asking if I was retarded and then mentioning the reason as to why you asked it), but I'd now like to meet you, just to watch you eat your own words. Don't talk it up to me unless you got a stronger basis than: "I'm too stupid to understand this guy, that must mean he's the retard."

I called you retarded because of the way you structured your statements, the way you make your baseless opinion equate to solid research and the way you dismiss research. I understood what you said, you’re just wrong. Even if you opinion happened to be right, an opinion is meaningless verses research. At least until you can bring research, that is the same quality not just a gut feeling, to the table.

Don’t fret that I called you retarded. I’ve called people a whole heap smarter than you retarded, including myself. So, you shouldn’t feel the need to start crying on an internet forum or even using some sort of intellectual e-peen threats to pose up your ego, it won’t make a difference. If you met me in person, we’d probably have a long, and probably cool, debate about stuff. We’d probably get on. At least that is what normally happens when I meet people in person, believe it or not I’m a pretty likable guy. I’m just blunt and to the point.

For the record, I’ve been playing violent video games for a long, long time and I still do. I’ve also researched the psychology behind how people get desensitised to violence though entertainment media and specifically interactive entertainment. Some of the work I’ve read includes research by former game designers now turned academic researchers; you know, real experts.

Again the crux of my point is that being continually exposed to low level violence makes us desensitised to violence, but it doesn’t make us immoral, psychopaths.

jim, you pose too many questions because you're just so far off topic.

so, instead of writing an essay, i'll just say this to you: i know exactly why i do the things i do, and it has nothing to do with proving my intellectual superiority to qglers (chosen peers hahaha), as like most people i know, i hold them in pretty low esteem.

how about you tell me what my apparent 'see through facade' is ... i'm always in for a good laugh

how about you tell me what my apparent 'see through facade' is ... i'm always in for a good laugh

He's trying to tell you that you're queer.

and that he likes you

Typo, first, it is not I that is wrong, and my statement wasn't as poorly structured as you make out, however, I do admit it probably didn't flow as well as it should have due to having just woken up before writing it.

This part is hilarious:

1: Actively participating isn’t researching.
2: Nobody knows exactly what goes on in peoples brains, including their own.
3: You know less than academics who focus on that stuff.
4: You’re wrong.
5: Most researchers who focus their research on or around games are in fact passionate gamers. Why else would they dedicate their lives, and their professional career, on the subject?

1. Actively participating with both a subjective and objective view IS researching. Ever heard of there is no greater teacher than experience?
2. Well dah, when do we ever really know EXACTLY what's going on with anything? It's just a figure of speech used to say "there's a fairly good understanding here".
3. Typical uni response, next you'll be telling me I know less about the philosophical nature of life compared to those who follow christianity their entire lives.
4. Nice opinion, but false. More research required.
5. Just because someone is passionate about something and research it continually doesn't make them right. Look at UFO enthusiasts, religious fanatics and many 'scientists' and 'psychologists' that claim to have a lot of research yet continually come up with bogus findings (for example, this topic, and that the human species will split into two in 100,000 years. That guy was meant to be extremely high up with a heck of a lot of research, are you going to side with him simply because of that, or are you going to use basic logic to work out the obvious?)

I don't go by gut feelings, I go by my own studies, and there was no threat in what I said, and yes that was the general idea ... in real life, people lose the god-like persona they bring on the internet (as they are kings in their own worlds) and start talking to you as a normal person. So after meeting me in real life, you wouldn't be calling me a retard, because we most likely would have that debate and be cool about everything. I'm on the same level as you here. I have no enemies in real life for this reason. I get along with everyone and people come back to me continually because they're comfortable knowing that I don't care enough about anything to really judge them (unless it's something really crazy like them hurting others or causing major damage to themselves).

The internet is a different story ... I'm much more opinionated for reasons jim was referring to but doesn't know of.

So anyway:

Again the crux of my point is that being continually exposed to low level violence makes us desensitised to violence, but it doesn’t make us immoral, psychopaths.

I agree. However, there is a pretty big line between actual low level violence, and low level violence in games (real verses fake).

I saw this thread and i thought it would be the perfect time to release the research i have been doing into computer game violence.

as the below graph shows, there is a strong corrolation between computers, the internet and violence. the graph speaks for itself.

http://dingo.net.au/thetruth.jpg

ahahahahah

I was going to respond to all of your points, however …

5. Just because someone is passionate about something and research it continually doesn't make them right. Look at UFO enthusiasts, religious fanatics and many 'scientists' and 'psychologists' that claim to have a lot of research yet continually come up with bogus findings […]

Your amazingly naive, ignorant and craptastic example only shows how uninformed you are about the entire subject matter. When you can come forward with something that isn’t moronic bulls*** come back.

There is a large difference between people who link points of conjecture together and those who research theories with provable and repeatable tests, it’s like comparing dog s*** and apples, the two are not even in the same ballpark.

Many scientists propose theories that are incomplete and publish them for peer review. Their intention is for other scientists to conduct their own research that makes a different, valid and testable counter-theory, which creates a never ending cycle of learning and understanding.

UFO, conspiracy theories, religious fanatics have nothing to test their string of conjectures against, and thus isn’t research. Which is essentially exactly what you have done here; you have a bunch of conjectures that you haven’t tested.

this was raised in one of my uni lectures once and this toolbag piped up and said "oh me and my brother have been playing violent games for xx years"

he was weird

so r u all

You speak more s*** than I realised. Fair enough, I used extreme examples of people putting a lot of thought into something and being wrong. Does that mean I am completely flawed and full of it? No, it just means I didn't realise what I needed to say in order to help you understand my viewpoint.

Your so called 'scientists' do tests but often get things wrong, because a lot of the time they're playing a guessing game, and don't realise that their findings are just coincidences rather than actual facts.

I'm just speaking to idiots. If I was actually able to portray my points the way I'd like without a billion nonsensical statements following them then I wouldn't dumb everything down so much.

You're out of your league, amateur, and my proof of that is your shallow minded analysis of the effects of video games on the human mind. You stop at:

-being continually exposed to low level violence makes us desensitised to violence, but it doesn’t make us immoral, psychopaths.

When in reality most people, if not close to 99% of them, can tell the difference between a game and real life, so it doesn't matter how much violence they see in games, it'll never prepare them for the real thing, just like looking at porn won't prepare you for what sex is really like.

How about instead of telling me why I must be wrong (because you know exactly how much research I've done and everything I'm basing what I'm saying on, because you're just so psychic and amazing), you do some real research into this topic and find out how things really effect people.

Damn kids.

WHEN YOU SEE A LEXUS AD IT DOESN'T MEANT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUY A LEXUS, BUT SOME WILL

I've played quake/cs all my life, I haven't comitted any crimes yet. s***house upbringing creates criminals not video games. stfu scare monger media outlets

jim, you pose too many questions because you're just so far off topic.

so, instead of writing an essay,

weak

i know exactly why i do the things i do, and it has nothing to do with proving my intellectual superiority to qglers (chosen peers hahaha), as like most people i know, i hold them in pretty low esteem.

as you gain emotional maturity you'll realise it's yourself that you're actually holding in low esteem. trying to direct your discontent toward the people you're choosing to be your peers is your way of avoiding that truth and continuing the self-deception. the subconcious notion that you're 'not up to scratch' will continue to be the underlying fuel for the feelings you have, which then result in the action of you exhibiting illusions of superiority.

I'm not really sure why you said "hahaha" to my saying "chosen peers". the people you see regularly posting here are people you are choosing to be your peers by the act of posting here as well.

how about you tell me what my apparent 'see through facade' is ... i'm always in for a good laugh

well I've touched on it, but time and experience will provide the best explanation for you. there's no point having it spelled out for you when you've already announced that your predisposition will be to continue with your head in the sand

GET IM' JIM!

just because you see violence in a computer game doesn't mean you'll become violent, some people do, thats called being susceptible

just because you see a set of boobs doesn't mean you want to touch them, some people do, that's called not gay

bottom line is that the media will take anything they think they can sell and then milk it all they can.

_any_ form of media which depicts violence can desensitise people to violence - games are a prime candidate though because of two main things:

- electronic entertainment in the form of video/computer games is becoming increasingly popular at a speedy rate and is thus in the spotlight, and it's clear that people are making a buck out of it
- games can be very immersive and revolve around actual participation as opposed to only observation

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before but I thought I'd get in on the great debate because I'm feeling left out:
Its not the video games turning normal kids into violent psychos, it's that the majority of violent psychos enjoy playing these violent video games. 'Tattoos don't make people bikies but the majority of bikies have tattoos' (bad analogy but still works).

Please feel free to mortify my opinion - I don't feel the need to prove I am the alpha QGLer like most of you try to do :P

I don't feel the need to prove I am the alpha QGLer like most of you try to do :P

I don't have to prove what everyone already knows http://users.bigpond.net.au/ritsuko/emoticons/emot-banjo.gif

i think its it comes down to the chicken or the egg.

did violence come before the games or games before the violence.

plain and simple human beings are violent by nature and we are geared to kill ourselves and eachother. while surviving and looking out for younglings and self it is from our primal instinct. this i think is portayed in so many things today we take as everyday occourances.

sport is a great example. hurt or defeat you opposition to a point where you get the upper hand to obtain the eventual goal of being the best, the number one or the only one left.

corperate ladder climbing is another. get above all the rest by outplaying outwitting or in other some circumstances outmuscling.

picking up the ladies. bunch of blokes influenced by that same primal urge to find a mate. once again outplaying the next random guy to get the girl. some circumstances it will result in violence.


i have a nine year old son. i let him play quake however i turn blood and gibs off. this is for the desensoring aspect. i think its healthy to ease kids into it but not keep them living in a dream world. i mean the 6 o'clock news will give a kid nightmares.

its no different to any other sport. you are using hand eye co-ordination to shoot targets. thats all they are. they arent people even my boy understands that. how many people here played army as a kid. with fake guns and got in character more than they do on fps games for example. who here played dead or died dramatically when they got shot then counted to 50 and "respawned" to continue the game. im sure these people who are arguing against video game violence are strong campaigners for healthy outdoors type children. running around being kids with their mates.

the oldies will tell you as they adjust the onion on their belt (im probably one to a certain extent) that when they were kids they used to go out after breaky and maybe come home for lunch then wouldnt be home till the sun hit the horizon. pulling fly's wings off. running round with fire crackers, legalized air rifles shooting whatever moved. playing tackle football where the only time it was a penalty is if someone drew blood.

i dont know but i think for young kids it should be the parents call on what their kids and themselves are exposed to. the way i see it is, some people are wired to harm or kill. its unfortunate but its been happening since adam strangled eve for giving him the apple that got them kicked out of the garden of eden. :)

Your so called 'scientists' do tests but often get things wrong, because a lot of the time they're playing a guessing game, and don't realise that their findings are just coincidences rather than actual facts.

Scientists don’t assume that x + y = z is the entire truth. They realise that x, y and z are all large complicated facets that have to be independently researched and investigated. It is however a qualifiedly, predictable outcome; which is an important step in our steps towards learning.

If a result is predicted, testable and repeatable then it isn’t a coincidence, it’s a predicted outcome. Unless you’re suggesting that predicted outcomes are coincidence that should be ignored. Is that what you’re saying?

Your entire argument seems to be that your opinions, which is based entirely on experience with no understanding of science, is more relevant than quantifiable, predictable research only enforces your stupidity.

Also, you don't just load up game for the first time and immediately become desensitised to violence, it takes years. The human mind is exceptionally bad at noticing small changes over a long time. The idea that you can monitor your own subtle reactions over the course of what is probably a decade of playing games is ridiculous.

I'm just speaking to idiots. If I was actually able to portray my points the way I'd like without a billion nonsensical statements following them then I wouldn't dumb everything down so much.

If your argument was anything more than “I think I’m right, even though I don’t understand what real research is.” Then maybe anything you say could be valid. Also, it might be helped if you didn’t write like a 12 year old myspacer.

How about instead of telling me why I must be wrong

Hi, I have, you’re just to dim to understand. It has been a accepted theory, for a long, long time, that exposure to low level violence desensitises people to violence. This is true in any medium, games included.

You’re also a massive hypocrite. How about you do some actual research instead of just linking some conjectures and ego before you ask me to do the same.

In 10 minutes I found about 8 papers on ACM that supported my claim and 0 that supported yours. Do you have access to ACMs digital library? I can PM you the links if you have.

What isn’t fair about modern media is when they only blame games. Popular media is as much, if not more, to blame. They also exclude the research that suggests that people can vent their aggressive nature within that digital world and as such have lowered actual cases of violent acts. Which makes sense.

Damn kids.

Haha, awesome come back for proving how much of an idiot you are.


last edited by typo at 13:49:09 28/Oct/06

last edited by typo at 13:49:40 28/Oct/06

jim, you're still under the impression that i don't understand what's going on. i'll say it again, i know EXACTLY why i do and say the things i do. and as for the statement about emotional maturity ... as i reach emotional maturity, i'll realise that i've been cut some slack from my developing emotions, not that it's me holding myself in low self esteem, because unlike you, i haven't needed to overcome such obstacles about myself. i haven't needed to accept i'm overweight, i haven't needed to accept i'm ugly, and i haven't needed to accept i'm no good at sports. i don't mean to sound rude or harsh, but who is really the one who has had low self esteem issues here? from what i've heard about you, it is most likely you. we see reflections of self in others, right? is that why you're trying to pin this garbage on me?

you mistake boredom, hatred for what's wrong in this world and the desire to argue with needing to feel superior way too often. the last thing on my mind is how superior i am ... if you knew me, you'd realise i absolutely hate being superior to anyone, because i like to be on equal terms so everyone can just get along without the jealousy and the rest of it. when i get compliments, i have no idea how to react, i sort of just go quiet and hope they know not to do it again. i've grown up being good at everything i do, so i try to stay away from any competition with those who aren't near my level.

the contradiction here is that my hate is so strong toward certain things (that come up from time to time on this forum (like the dopes that will call me a knob or gay for not going wild over something as silly as breasts being exposed)) that i'll usually dismiss the above and attack those lesser than me.

so the point is, it's not that i want to feel superior or that i'm trying to prove anything, i just really hate certain things so much that i lash out, and then when i see idiots dare challenge my intelligence with nonsensical bs, superiority comes into it, yes. should i do it? no probably not, i should probably have more self control, but when i'm really tired after a long day and bored because i haven't the energy to really do anything else, any notion of self control is forgotten. i hope that clears that up for you so you don't keep spouting psychological bs that has no real basis because you just don't 'get it' when it comes to my posts and the reasons behind them

oh and if you want a reason for this explanation ... i also hate leaving debates/arguments or whatever you want to call this unfinished. yeah yeah i know, i have to have the last word a lot of the time, sue me

I'm not really sure why you said "hahaha" to my saying "chosen peers". the people you see regularly posting here are people you are choosing to be your peers by the act of posting here as well.

i laughed because you actually made out like QGL were chosen peers of mine, i understood that's what you were implying, you didn't need to repeat yourself. i, like most people i've mentioned qgl to, think a lot of the people on here are retards. i don't think of them as people i have to impress, i just hate them enough to want to insult and respond to.


last note for typo: your tests are flawed, so i rightfully put them in the same boat as crack pot theories and religious nuts. the human mind is too complex for you to understand still it seems, so while you're saying one thing is happening because of something, in reality it's happening because of something else.

you put someone in front of a video game, they lose, they start to get aggressive. is it because of the violence in the game? no, it's because they don't like losing. it's all about the desire to achieve and then hate for not achieving. i won't explain it in more detail though, i'll just hope you figure it out one day so i don't have to hate on your dumb uni ass any further

just because you see violence in a computer game doesn't mean you'll become violent, some people do, thats called being susceptible

just because you see a set of boobs doesn't mean you want to touch them, some people do, that's called not gay

rofle - that was gold

oh goodie typo just replied

Scientists don’t assume that x + y = z is the entire truth. They realise that x, y and z are all large complicated facets that have to be independently researched and investigated. It is however a qualifiedly, predictable outcome; which is an important step in our steps towards learning.

That is true, except while they're so enthralled in x, y and z, they often miss a, b and c.

If a result is predicted, testable and repeatable then it isn’t a coincidence, it’s a predicted outcome. Unless you’re suggesting that predicted outcomes are coincidence that should be ignored. Is that what you’re saying?

No, I'm saying you're missing several other factors, and that it's ludicrous to believe that computer game violence can desensitize someone toward real violence. This alone voids your point.

Your entire argument seems to be that your opinions, which is based entirely on experience with no understanding of science, is more relevant than quantifiable, predictable research only enforces your stupidity.

As with most of the other opinions you're stated, just because you say it doesn't make it true. I've read a lot into science and conducted many tests of my own after breaking everything down and starting from the bottom. I can easily flaw your arguments because of this, that is why continually referring to all this apparent research done that proves you right is just getting funnier by the minute. You're so obviously wrong, but you're going on and on about these phantom tests that prove you right. How about addressing the point for a change instead of just attacking me with lines like "you haven't done any research".

Also, you don't just load up game for the first time and immediately become desensitised to violence, it takes years. The human mind is exceptionally bad at noticing small changes over a long time. The idea that you can monitor your own subtle reactions over the course of what is probably a decade of playing games is ridiculous.

Who said anything about immediately? Also, you might not be able to monitor subtle reactions over time in yourself, but you can remember exactly how you felt when you first saw it, and how you feel now. This is how you can get a better scope of how things are affecting you, just like myself when I first saw someone get hit in the head by a shovel in postal.

If your argument was anything more than “I think I’m right, even though I don’t understand what real research is.” Then maybe anything you say could be valid. Also, it might be helped if you didn’t write like a 12 year old myspacer.

That's funny. Do you even know what my argument is? Because you still haven't told me why it's wrong apart from: "my halfassed studies have shown this".

And again, just because you say I write like a 12 year old myspacer, doesn't mean I do. Nice insult though, here's one for you: "Your gay".

Hi, I have, you’re just to dim to understand. It has been a accepted theory, for a long, long time, that exposure to low level violence desensitises people to violence. This is true in any medium, games included.

Accepted theory among idiots doesn't make the theory good. Video game violence does not desensitize people to real violence. I'd love to know how they've tested this, because it seems to me they've just had some randoms come in, play games for a while then answer QUESTIONS, and not put them in actual situations to really find out what the real reactions would be. Just answering questions leaves things in the subjective. The person can imagine things and probably show they are desensitized to violence, but in reality they'd react very differently, because a real situation has a lot more to it than the actual act.

You’re also a massive hypocrite. How about you do some actual research instead of just linking some conjectures and ego before you ask me to do the same.

I've done plenty of research. Good research. Research that actually comes with real results. What have you done apart from read a bunch of papers that couldn't conduct proper experiments?

In 10 minutes I found about 8 papers on ACM that supported my claim and 0 that supported yours. Do you have access to ACMs digital library? I can PM you the links if you have.

Wow, an entire library of bs, yes I must believe you now. Where's this real research of yours?

What isn’t fair about modern media is when they only blame games. Popular media is as much, if not more, to blame. They also exclude the research that suggests that people can vent their aggressive nature within that digital world and as such have lowered actual cases of violent acts. Which makes sense.

I agree with this point. My problem with you is that you stop half way. Keep going.

In fact, let's stop filling QGL Forum with this nonsense and take it to MSN. I'm sure we'll be much more civilized toward one another when we can openly express opinions in real time rather than having someone write an entire essay for us to reply to later.

Instant message me through here your email and I'll add you sometime on Monday. I'll be busy for the weekend so I won't have time.

so out of the hundreds of gamers on QGL how many of us have not been effected by computer games? 3? 4?

i know i regularly car jack cars to do run drugs for the mob or run down the triads because they haven't paid their dues.

laslo is the only one who i can share my pain with..




last edited by ara at 14:45:26 28/Oct/06

I fear the day when the chance of violence hits 120%.

pm sent. I'll most likely be busy on monday as there is a major project deadline approaching, but I'm sure I'll be around.

Accepted theory among idiots doesn't make the theory good

In general, idiots don’t become respected academics. Especially at ivy league level academic institutes like Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Oxford. Researchers that do attempt to intentionally publish false statements generally get caught and fired.

I’ll be the first to admit that there are some pretty s***ty researchers in the world. Those researchers don’t normally get published in quality peer reviewed journals, like ACM.

If you’re so super smart on the topic, maybe you should publish your results somewhere. People have become professors on the argument that low level violence in media effects people in the long term, and professorships can make some seriously nice money.

I've done plenty of research

Being an active member of a community alone isn’t research. Talking to your mates doesn’t constitute research. While it does provide for an interesting ethnographic point of view, it doesn’t give you any understanding of what people are actually thinking or doing. In fact, it can actively bias your position because you get tainted over time as well.

I’ll be the first to admit that my research is limited to having a broad level of understanding of published work combined with a long time exposure with gaming communities. I never said that I was an expert, neither of us are, I said I had studied from real experts.

I never focused that long, or hard, on the impacts of violence in media but I am interested in the topic. In my spare time I have read though the research and there is a common theme, violence begets violence. This notion is generally accepted as fact though academia.

Where's this real research of yours?

My major focus, both when I was at uni and now at work, has been focused on interaction design of physical computing. Most of my time has been ether researching, designing, building or analysing areas around this topic. Between my 40 hour working weeks, project deadlines and attempting polish up some work for an upcoming exhibit tour, I simply don’t have the time, opportunity or facilities to do my own research.

However, I never claimed that I was an expert on this matter. I was putting forward the respected opinion of experts of this field on the table. Your only defence that anybody who disagrees with you are “idiots”.

Where’s the research of yours that isn’t speculation or conjecture? How have you attempted to predict results in a reliable, testable and repeatable way? Remember “I’m in the scene” and “I know what’s going on in my head” are not indicative of quality research.

Wow, an entire library of bs,

Are you calling ACMs digital library bulls***? Do you know what ACM is?




last edited by typo at 15:03:27 28/Oct/06

That's the better side of you, typo, to the point but without the aggression. That's a side I'm hoping to see on MSN. I don't mind giving you my actual theories and research, but QGL has become a bit of a "let's just hate everything" place for me because people on here love bandwagons and going with what's politically correct according to this forum rather than having a real opinion of their own.

I'll answer the rest via msn. And of course if you can't do it Monday due to something important, it's more than fair. This isn't that important, but it'll be an interesting discussion topic. Tuesday or whenever you have time, I'm free most week nights.

Oh and the reason I don't write up my findings and make a lot of money is because with my abilities I can make a lot more money elsewhere. But, it's an ego trip when I say something, get disagreed with, and then get proven right a few years later when the 'scientists' finally catch up.

Yeah I know, I'm a bit too in love with myself. So much for insecurities huh, Jim? ;)

For some reason this thread reminds me of the word 'clipto'.

dunno fpot, that wasn't the word i was hunting for

ahha this is classic
the fact that you think people actually buy this s*** is hilarious dice

I fear the day when the chance of violence hits 120%.

i fear that day too, but soon it will arrive.

take2 interactive and rockstar are bringing out bully very soon.

THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT IS GOING TO END!

ahha this is classic
the fact that you think people actually buy this s*** is hilarious dice

Jim, WAKE UP. Haven't you seen my above graph. THIS STUFF IS REAL!

ara when 'scientists' finally catch up to you, millions will be coming your way

jim, they will never catch up to me. im way to far ahead of them.

the only way they will find out my research is when i publish in full and make millions from the book sales.

anyone got a photocopier i can borrow?

QGL has become a bit of a "let's just hate everything" place for me because people on here love bandwagons and going with what's politically correct according to this forum rather than having a real opinion of their own.

SHUT UP c***.

i better go do some research into what it takes to be cool on qgl, brb watching low level porn, the o.c and lost

edit: oh and jim, you are so right. i am wrong about everything, have nothing to back myself up and pretty much have nothing at all good about me! well done you, you figured me out!

What happened to you dice man, you used to be cool.

hey, i'm still cool, you pay later! later!

low level porn, the o.c and lost

Dammit I fail at cool on all three of those counts :/ and probably alot more too ...

oc and lost are two of the biggest turds on tele (prison break for the turd trifecta)

please dont ever knock low level pron, or any other kind of pron evar again those plzkbi

Research shows that reading forums decreases a person's ability to make a coherent argument while inversely increasing a person's perception of their ability to make a coherent argument.

games don't make people violent, working in a pub makes people violent.

i've played games since i was like 11 and was never really angry, ever since i started working in a pub and dealing with f***wits i wana bash half the people i meet out now :|

also honestly who gives a s*** what the media reports, half of it's just biased to the point of stupidity.

wow is as bad as heroin
violent games make today's criminals
porn is sterilising todays generation of men i mean ffs.

last edited by Raider at 00:00:32 31/Oct/06

This thread reminded me of QGL Chat... *sniffle*

ohh yeah this was my thread :)

based on what i wrote to that guy :p

you're both very, very important - yet still nowhere near as impotent as dice

important, rather

freudian slip hey

Holy crap, my brain has started to insta skip dice/dice related paragraphs. Took me long enough.

Do you disagree with this?

My Argument:

When someone is exposed to something continually, they will be desensitized (eventually) to it. It is said that video game violence is desensitizing people to real world violence. This is false. There is a big difference between real world violence and video game violence, and the brain is more than capable of distinguishing between the two.

Now, am I wrong or do you agree? I know there are rational people on this forum, please come out of hiding and give me some back up, because this is just getting ridiculous with the vast majority seeming to be against me for no reason except that it has become a bandwagon.

Dice/Typo, paste the MSN script!

Now, am I wrong or do you agree?

You are wrong.

It's definitely not false - exposure to _any_ violence desensitises people to violence - 'real world' or otherwise. The only question is the degree to which we are desensitised - which is going to be wildly varying from person to person.

Yes, there is a big difference between violence depicted in a video game and actual violence you might see in person. However, this statement is about as relevant to this discussion as the statement "the brain is more than capable of distinguishing between the two" - it isn't relevant.

Why isn't it relevant? I'm not desensitized at all to real world violence and I've been playing violent games for over 14 years now, just like many people, so how do you account for this?

I put it to you that if I am being desensitized at all, it is so minor it's hardly even worth a mention.

I put it to you that if I am being desensitized at all, it is so minor it's hardly even worth a mention.

but that doesnt explain why your 'Tranny Surprise' porn collection has grown over the years.

It isn't relevant because the question isn't whether or not there is a difference between violence depicted in a video game, and actual violence you may witness - the question is: whether being exposed to depicted violence in various forms of media (computer games in this case), can effect change on your own perception of violence.

I'm not desensitized at all to real world violence and I've been playing violent games for over 14 years now, just like many people, so how do you account for this?

I put it to you that if I am being desensitized at all, it is so minor it's hardly even worth a mention.

The truth is that you either don't want to admit or acknowledge that you are being desensitised to violence, or you simply don't realise it. Another truth is that not everyone on the planet is identical to you, so attempting to use yourself as a blanket example doesn't make any sense.

The truth is that you either don't want to admit or acknowledge that you are being desensitised to violence, or you simply don't realise it. Another truth is that not everyone on the planet is identical to you, so attempting to use yourself as a blanket example doesn't make any sense.

Despite what you may believe, I will always follow the truth, no matter what I previously thought. It is very obvious to me that I am not being desensitized by video game violence, because I've seen really bad things happening in games and have not cared, yet in real life I've had some pretty bad emotional responses when I have seen real world violence, even when it was something as mundane as some drunk fighting another drunk.

True, not everyone is identical, but I have spoken to a lot of people and they are not being desensitized either, and they have the ability to analyse themselves quite easily.

You believe people are being desensitized, so how much are they being desensitized, give me a real world example, because all you and others have really done so far is said, "You are wrong because we believe this, and we have phantom studies to back us up."

Don't complain about being moderated/nuked/deleted/banned.

the FICKLE FINGER of FATE points at you dice.

Don't abuse other users.

say what?

Despite what you may believe, I will always follow the truth, no matter what I previously thought.

Despite what you say, I don't believe you

It is very obvious to me that I am not being desensitized by video game violence...

...because I've seen really bad things happening in games and have not cared, yet in real life I've had some pretty bad emotional responses when I have seen real world violence, even when it was something as mundane as some drunk fighting another drunk.

It's amazing that you appear to get so riled up when people disagree with you and lash back claiming they are somehow bandwagoning against you and providing no tangible argument, yet the basis for your own conclusion is that "you have had a pretty bad emotional response to seeing violence".

Why don't you google "how the brain reacts to violence" or something along those lines, and learn some fundamentals about how the brain deals with unpleasant experiences. Then, consider how silly your conclusion is.

so if I told you your boyfriend said you could eat a peach for hours, would that be an insult or a compliment?

And meanwhile all you are doing is telling me I'm wrong and telling me I need to do more research, and yet you have never backed yourself up.

You should do more research. I already know how these things work, and I'm backed up by actual evidence from the real world, not some biased and false 'studies'.

No you should do more research, you don't know how these things work. I'm backed up by actual evidence, not some biased and false 'studies'.

Yeah ok, Jim, how about you respond to this:

[Edited] You believe people are being desensitized, so how much are they being desensitized? Give me a real world example.

Real world examples don't really mean anything.

dice, what scale of measurement would you like your 'how much' question to?

Meanwhile, here's a real world example:

A human is exposed to unpleasant violence. Due to the known, undisputed manner in which the brain handles this, they are desensitised.

The end.

Today, Video Games are nothing more than the current scape goat fad.
Yesterday it was music.

Any 'ideas' people get from any of these mediums is simply the scape goat for bad parenting.

All this s*** has existed before televisions or even radio even existed, the introduction of all these new media forms did not bring about senseless and violent murders, rapes etc.

There really is no more to it.

good call loki

now jim

A human is exposed to unpleasant violence. Due to the known, undisputed manner in which the brain handles this, they are desensitised.

The end.

you miss too many words. A human is exposed to FAKE(VIDEO GAME) unpleasant violence. Due to the known, undisputed manner in which the brain handles this, they are desensitized to FAKE(VIDEO GAME) unpleasant violence.

Now continue that point.

A human is exposed to REAL WORLD(REALITY) unpleasant violence. Due to the known, undisputed manner in which the brain handles this, they are desensitized to REAL WORLD(REALITY)unpleasant violence.

There is a difference between the two.

Now continue that point.

Ok: "Additionally, due to the known, undisputed manner in which the brain functions, the fact that violence might be depicted, doesn't negate the brain's handling of violence - it only lessens the extent to which the subject is desensitised based on the level of depiction and how realistic or graphic it may have been"

There is a difference between the two.

That's true, and nobody has claimed otherwise. That doesn't mean that depicted violence doesn't desensitise you to actual violence. You're crazy.

That doesn't mean that depicted violence doesn't desensitise you to actual violence.

No, depicted violence is different to actual violence. The brain is capable of discerning between the two.

Abstract
Numerous studies have shown that exposure to media violence increases aggression, though the mechanisms of this effect have remained elusive. One theory posits that repeated exposure to media violence desensitizes viewers to real world violence, increasing aggression by blunting aversive reactions to violence and removing normal inhibitions against aggression. Theoretically, violence desensitization should be reflected in the amplitude of the P300 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP), which has been associated with activation of the aversive motivational system. In the current study, violent images elicited reduced P300 amplitudes among violent, as compared to nonviolent video game players. Additionally, this reduced brain response predicted increased aggressive behavior in a later task. Moreover, these effects held after controlling for individual differences in trait aggressiveness. These data are the first to link media violence exposure and aggressive behavior to brain processes hypothetically associated with desensitization.

Taken from
Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data
Bartholow, Bruce D1; Bushman, Brad J2; Sestir, Marc A3
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 42(4), Jul 2006, pp. 532-539

No, depicted violence is different to actual violence. The brain is capable of discerning between the two.

Sure, but it is still exposure to violence, even if it isn't the same. Essentially, what you’re saying is that simulations have no real effect on participants because they can distinguish reality from fantasy. That simply isn’t true, simulation, fantasy, and imagination or heck any kind of exposure has some sort of lasting, gradual effect on participants.

Also, desensitisation from violence isn’t an on off switch. It’s experience, loss of innocence, awareness, an understanding of or even just gotten used to it. As such, it is a graduate effect that attributes over your life. Your point of “it’s life experience’ is true, but simulated violence is as equally valid in attributing to that experience.

However, again, simulated violence doesn’t make you immoral or more prone to violence.

Hah, this one was interesting too... I didn't read the whole article and the implications for the real world... but still interesting.

Abstract This study assessed the speed of recognition of facial emotional expressions (happy and angry) as a function of violent media consumption. Color photos of calm facial expressions morphed to either an angry or a happy facial expression. Participants were asked to make a speeded identification of the emotion (happiness or anger) during the morph. Results indicated that, independent of trait aggressiveness, participants high in violent media consumption responded slower to depictions of happiness and faster to depictions of anger than participants low in violent media consumption. Implications of these findings are discussed with respect to current models of aggressive behavior.

Violent Media Consumption and the Recognition of Dynamic Facial Expressions
Kirsh, Steven J1; Mounts, Jeffrey R W1; Olczak, Paul V1
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Vol 21(5), May 2006, pp. 571-584

No, depicted violence is different to actual violence. The brain is capable of discerning between the two.

Yes, depicted violence is different - yes, the brain is typically capable of discerning between the two - no, this doesn't mean that depicted violence doesn't desensitise you to actual violence.

^ Yes it does.

here's some dialogue before Typo ran away on msn (his name isn't Typo on msn, but I forced it to be Typo with MSN Plus, for those wondering. and i'm obviously Zy)

Zy said:
also it depends on how real the violence seems. like i said, when i first saw a guy being hit in the head with a shovel on postal2 i was pretty horrified by it, but then i became accustomed to it. however, there's no way i could handle seeing a person hit in the head with a shovel in real life.
Typo says:
again, it isn't an on/off switch and there is a bunch of reasons that you couldn't handle seeing someone get hit in the head with a shovel. Morality, ethicality, social conditioning and exposure are all factors
Zy says:
right, so obviously i'm not being desensitized to it am i
Typo says:
no
Typo says:
no, that's not right
Zy says:
well you just said it
Typo says:
you are getting desensitised to violence, just not on a large scale
Zy says:
there are a heap of reasons why i couldn't handle seeing it in real life
Typo says:
no, I hit enter accidently
Typo says:
oh f*** your ignorant

you know the funniest thing in msn chat so far ... Typo told me i write like 12 year old myspacer on qgl, and yet he just said "your ignorant". pretty poor mistake for one so preachy about language

classic.

oh well, he has run away now, so i'll just add to the last point he made

the actual act of someone being hit in the head with a shovel differs greatly to the fantasy version ... not only are the graphics still pretty poor, therefore not representing what it would really look like, but there is a different sound, a different feel to the situation, and as typo was drawing reference to, a lot of other factors that cause the brain to be more aware of things

if you played CS all day and night for years, and then you went into a real life battle zone, you'd be a heck of a lot more cautious and feel a heck of a lot more emotions toward it (fear, doubt, anxiety and so on), because now when you die or get shot, you either don't come back or feel a lot of pain.

therefore the conclusion is simple: games do not desensitize you to real violence, because in real life, everything feels a lot different and there are many other factors, the main being you don't respawn

thoughts?

^ Yes it does.

No it doesn't.

thoughts? yes - your head is buried in the sand, and you think that everything is sand, just because your head is buried in it

I like the part where Jim uses the word 'sand' it's almost as if it is a euphemism or perhaps that is just my take on it.

I honestly don't know either way about being desensitized to violence by video games, but I sure as hell know I would never want to re-enact any of the violence I perform in any fps I have played. I just don't enjoy seeing people suffer.

However, one thing that has desensitized me is the media. I shrug off reading when 10, 100 or 1000 people have been killed in some part of the world that does not have an obvious direct effect on me.

And what the hell is the deal with horror movies?

no u r

However, one thing that has desensitized me is the media. I shrug off reading when 10, 100 or 1000 people have been killed in some part of the world that does not have an obvious direct effect on me.

That's a related but slightly different topic. The general essence of that is that it really means nothing for you because it's just numbers on a page. It just isn't designed to cause empathy.

Chances are if I saw a doco on the plight of the sudanise I'd feel emotion, and thus care ... briefly.

mmm, all extremely bad and gay points, but i cant decide who i hate more

loki and dice are complete spankers

but I am a sad c*** as well

this one is going to go down to the wire

since when have you had a problem with me spook, sir bworkx

since when have you had a problem with me spook, sir bworkx

You're a dud root.

a dud root, wow, i am just so insulted now

You would probably be less aggressive if you played violent video games less frequently.

here's some dialogue before Typo ran away on msn (his name isn't Typo on msn, but I forced it to be Typo with MSN Plus, for those wondering. and i'm obviously Zy)

Thanks for posting a private chat on a public forum. If I had realised you where not only ignorant but also a c***, I would have never have given you my details.

you know the funniest thing in msn chat so far ... Typo told me i write like 12 year old myspacer on qgl, and yet he just said "your ignorant". pretty poor mistake for one so preachy about language

edit: oh, 'your' ... you must be new here.

Secondly, I’m not so preachy about the language. Generally speaking, I keep my yap shut on the topic. However, if you look at the earlier posts of yours [in this thread] you’ll probably notice it looked like something you’d see on myspace.

I did misspell accidentally though.

oh well, he has run away now, so i'll just add to the last point he made

As I explained to you when I gave you my details, I’m pretty busy at work this week. In fact, I’m moderately busy most weeks. I really didn’t have time to talk to you in the first place, and you’re an idiot, so I left.

and as typo was drawing reference to, a lot of other factors that cause the brain to be more aware of things

Including games.

if you played CS all day and night for years, and then you went into a real life battle zone, you'd be a heck of a lot more cautious and feel a heck of a lot more emotions toward it (fear, doubt, anxiety and so on), because now when you die or get shot, you either don't come back or feel a lot of pain.

Again, desensitisation isn’t on/off. It’s a slide. You’re more used to violence than if you had never played games. Do you get it yet? Also, before you say it again … Humans are awful at observation skills overall. Making observations about how they have subtly changed over the course of a decade is, without a lot of documentation, practically impossible for non glaring changes.

thoughts?

Why are you asking? You don’t actually care about anybody else’s opinion but your own biased conjectures, and those who don’t agree with you are wrong; including vast libraries of academics.

a dud root, wow, i am just so insulted now

Hi, I was making fun of Spook.

last edited by typo at 00:13:08 03/Nov/06

last edited by typo at 00:22:20 03/Nov/06

Thanks for posting a private chat on a public forum. If I had realised you where not only ignorant but also a c***, I would have never have given you my details.

Pfft, it's not like there was anything personal in there. If you had actually entrusted something important with me, I'd never post it. That was just a harmless piece of dialogue that I thought you were leaving me on, so I replied here ... not only because I thought it was the only way to get the message to you, but also because I knew a few people were interested in seeing what we were going to talk about. If I had have known you were so touchy, I probably wouldn't have even asked you for your details.

?

Ah, I wasn't referring to the word ignorant ... I was referring to "your", which should have been "you're" as in "you are ignorant". I guess you didn't know that rule though. It's a common error, I won't have too big a go at you for it, but please, if you're going to stoop so low as to say I write like a 12 year old myspacer, be sure you know the basics of the language first.

As I explained to you when I gave you my details, I’m pretty busy at work this week. In fact, I’m moderately busy most weeks. I really didn’t have time to talk to you in the first place, and you’re an idiot.

Yes, but you rage quitted. If you had have left with "You're ignorant, but I'll bbl", then I wouldn't have come to the conclusion I did, but leaving straight after an insult (which would suggest you were upset?) leaves pretty much only one possible answer.

Again, desensitisation isn’t on/off. It’s a slide. You’re more used to violence than if you had never played games. Do you get it yet? Also, before you say it again … Humans are awful at observation skills overall. Making observations about how they have subtly changed over the course of a decade is, without a lot of documentation, practically impossible for non glaring changes.

You continually repeat yourself as if I don't already know these points. I know them, I probably understand them better than you, but you're not understanding my points. Now think very carefully before calling me an idiot, you will need to think a lot harder about this topic if you think you need to repeat yourself to me.

Why are you asking? You don’t actually care about anybody else’s opinion but your own biased conjectures, and those who don’t agree with you are wrong; including vast libraries of academics.

Rhetoric perhaps? I don't mind a casual debate over things, and if you noticed in MSN, I wasn't the one slinging insults. As for libraries, look, I find them as daunting as anyone else because there is just so much thought and time put into them. However, if you bothered to read those reports, you'll see that very few, if any at all (I haven't seen any yet) say that Video Game Violence DEFINITELY desensitizes people to Real World Violence, they just draw links between the two ... but those links are up in the air, because they still haven't found conclusive data to make anything solid. This is no surprise to me, because they're missing the fundamentals that are required for researching this topic, which I have through my six years of in depth analysis of the human mind and existence. And for both our sakes, don't question me on this, it takes wisdom to appreciate the wise, so neither of us will be able to appreciate anything the other has to say on this sort of topic, because we're both under that mind, and neither of us is wise in the other's eyes. If you want evidence of just how much I know, take a quick look at my life and see the manner I deal with real problems and how I've been able to pull people out of suicidal thoughts. I've been able to help them become happy again, within a time period of three weeks rather than two years, which they had spent going to people who had university training of however long it takes to become a psychologist. I prevail where your so called experts fail. There are reasons why I am so confident in what I have to say and why I look down upon many so-called academics. But your world is small compared to mine, so I doubt you'd even believe that I am capable of such things.

Hi, I was making fun of Spook.

You quoted me and then say that you were making fun of Spook? That is obviously false. Or are you trying to say that I was making fun of Spook and mocking my voice through typing or something? That would also be false, as you'll see in my response to Spook, there was no insult at all.


last edited by dice at 00:38:35 03/Nov/06

you are a complete nutjob!

who'd have thought hunter's boots could be so adequately filled, it's f***ing hilarious my stomach is aching from laughing my ass off so much

If you want evidence of just how much I know, take a quick look at my life and see the manner I deal with real problems

rofl

evidence? what, if we have crystal balls?

and how I've been able to pull people out of suicidal thoughts.

I have to admit, seeing how fruity you are would sure make most other problems pale in comparison. "what was I thinking?! this guy is REALLY f***ed up"

I'm not even gonna bother reading all your crap, but f*** your posts annoy the s*** out of me dice.

Get a life dude.

dice you remind me so much of loki...possibly MORE annoying

Jim, aren't you a fat unhealthy loser? Or were they joking when they said that... please correct me, because right now I can't see how you can belittle me so continually without anything good about you?

Le Cock, aren't you just some random with no credibility whatsoever and a name that suits him to the bone?

Maverik, to be cool in your eyes I'd have to go to the gym and screw chicks ... leave the debate to people of a little more intellectual integrity, thanks.

Queensland Bogan League much? You have a couple of people on here who like to think ... Loki being one, and there's that predator guy. But instead of encouraging them to work things out in hope of making life that little bit better, you continually put them down and make out like they're crazy.

You guys don't like my posts, don't read them. Poor babies, being irritated by something someone is saying that you can't possibly even begin to comprehend. Am I making your wil brainzy wainzy hurt? Awwwwwwwwwwwwww

i think dice is loki now.

That's it. Bashed @ QGL c***face.

And I have over twice as many posts as u, which means I have twice as much credibility. It's e-law.

Mav, you are brilliant, you actually worked out that I am Loki. Bravo.

Le Cock, my e-penis is still bigger than yours, my post count is just to give you the impression I'm newer. Your basht first @ next QGL.

I'm confused.>
am I dice or is dice me?

What's going on here guys?

P.S. Can I be trog next?

last edited by Loki at 03:59:27 03/Nov/06

p.s. dice has been around a while, his uid = 5886

for us players that don't track when f***ers change their nick constantly, can you give me a run down of your old nicks to see if I can remember who the f*** you are?

Also I am stuck at work to do some UAT testing tonight, so I might actually read this thread in it's entirety later when I am bored :)

Ah, I wasn't referring to the word ignorant

I eventually got it. I was tired when I was writing that post. I hadn’t gotten home that much earlier. Eventually, I edited my post.

If you had actually entrusted something important with me, I'd never post it.

Sure you wouldn’t.

Yes, but you rage quitted.

As I said I was busy, and it was like talking to an idiot. I didn’t have time for it, and seeing that you’re not my friend I removed you from my friends list. I wasn’t ever going to be back later for you, I was just f***ing gone.

I know them, I probably understand them better than you,

It’s obvious that you don’t, otherwise you’d understand and not repeat the same bulls*** over and over.

Now think very carefully before calling me an idiot,

Retard?

you will need to think a lot harder about this topic if you think you need to repeat yourself to me.

Maybe if your argument didn’t boil down to tolerance must be an on/off switch or that it isn’t directly related to morality

I probably understand them better than you, but you're not understanding my points.

That’s because your points are retarded, it’s impossible to understand your points.

However, if you bothered to read those reports, you'll see that very few, if any at all (I haven't seen any yet) say that Video Game Violence DEFINITELY desensitizes people to Real World Violence, they just draw links between the two

1: Like you’ve quoted any.
2: I offered to send you links to papers stored on ACM, which you mocked. I didn’t feel compelled to spend my valuable time sending you copies of the papers that supported my argument who called all of academia “idiots”.
3: You wouldn’t understand, or value them anyway. Unless I suppose they agreed with you, then that guy would be awesome.

Finally, If you want to quote SVU, you should quote it right.

ecause they're missing the fundamentals that are required for researching this topic, which I have through my six years of in depth analysis of the human mind and existence

f***, are you hunter? So, a professor of physiology who has spent 40 years studying the science of the subject doesn’t understand it as well as you?

And for both our sakes, don't question me on this

Why, will you add me to your list?

If you want evidence of just how much I know, take a quick look at my life and see the manner I deal with real problems

I know I think I’m pretty uber, but even I don’t think I’m omniscient

nd how I've been able to pull people out of suicidal thoughts

Irrelevant to this conversation.

I prevail where your so called experts fail.

Quite possibly, psychological techniques are generally dependant on the person with the problems opening up and supporting the process. If that person didn’t tryst the psychologist then nothing they could do would work.

There are reasons why I am so confident in what I have to say and why I look down upon many so-called academics.

because you’re ignorant of their processes and level of understanding.

But your world is small compared to mine, so I doubt you'd even believe that I am capable of such things.

Sorry if I don’t believe some retarded, egotistical, wanker on QGL has more depth of understanding than researchers in the field. I don’t want to step on your fragile ego, but have you wondered why the majority of the active posters in this thread wonder why you’re so deluded on this matter?

Ps I can explain how you helped people become less suicidal, you left them alone for five minutes.

haha jim is not a fat unhealthy loser, hes an extremely fit healthy loser

no I am a weiner

Jim beat me up in a 7-11 carpark once :(

what part of "those kinder suprises were mine, c***" did you not understand?

jims cool.


GOD SAYS THAT VIDEO GAMES ARE EVIL! now, it doesn't matter how much evedence you place infront of my face. my 6 years of attendance in church has given me further understanding than any of you guys could possibly understand. also my god pulls people out of suicidal thoughts!

Dice, get the f*** over yourself. you have an oppinion. but don't think that everyone else is an idiot because they disagree.

you would look right at home next to a religious nut. your just preaching about something different, thats all.

blah blah blah blah blah

qgl are all talk

go make something of yourselves

hahahahah sorry, couldn't resist, i know you're not going anywhere :)

lolz he's hunter!!!! lolz he's retarded!!!!! lolz and i'm the one that repeats myself. ah you guys :-D

ps, i used to be auricom ... but i think i've always been dice on qgl? just i didn't post much on here, i was more interested in SA Chat with the q2ctf'ers. we used to bicker on there too ... ah some things never change

GET f***ED c***.

Now now, no need for nasty words mister.

HEY f*** YOU GRONKSTER.

Hmmm, and this thread was just building up momentum too!

Since I take no side but my own in any thread.
I think it'd be a wise idea to point out that it might be time to retire the posting button dice.
You're beginning to crack out things that make you look like you have some issues man.

You're beginning to crack out things that make you look like you have some issues man.

which is why he should post more often! the fun is to be had in big threads where 2 partys are flaming eachother.

^ yeah, i'm entertainment and you know it

who'd have thought hunter's boots could be so adequately filled

I was thinking that same thing as I was skimming through this.

I'm beginning to wonder if there's some secret club, and they just tag each other as they roam the internet spouting bizzare opinions and telling people just how damn clever they are?

whoa

have you guys read back over this thread? it sounded right to me at the time, but all i can think of now is "who gives a ****"

i mean, sure i still think i'm right, but it's not worth 8 pages

let this bs die. you think you're right. i think i'm right. case closed.

last edited by dice at 02:34:03 04/Nov/06

you are still a f***wit but ok?

yeah sure, why not

ok

<3 u scog

it sounded right to me at the time,

Hindsight is wonderful.
Next time try to imagine this point in time you're in now of viewing back on it and think "Why bother starting in the first place!"

Instead, just call Spook a stupid pastey whiteboy and be done with the thread ;)

yeah sounds about right loki, i had fun though ... and you always learn from things like that, even if it isn't what they want you to learn

gg all

Spook is a stupid pastey whiteboy

dammit!! this is my thread and I'll say when it's closed!!

30 frames is all you need


/start!

get an S3

what part of "those kinder suprises were mine, c***" did you not understand?

That made me laugh :)

qgl are all talk

Wait, you’re the one talking up your magical abilities and how they are superior to experts in the field.

go make something of yourselves

hahahahah sorry, couldn't resist, i know you're not going anywhere :)

Have you read the ‘what do you do, what did you study?” thread?

let this bs die. you think you're right. i think i'm right. case closed.

That’s a perfect example of his entire argument.

get an S3

Get a job

hahaha typo can't let it go

edit: the response to the part that was here is way too predictable, so it's not even worth leaving here.

last edited by dice at 13:53:05 04/Nov/06

who can't let it go?

Spook is a stupid pastey whiteboy

skin cancer isnt a joke guys

i look after my skin by staying out of the sun

it helps me to look nice and young and not die

skin cancer isn't a joke...but you sure are!

u r

uh uh! u r!

(btw that was way too fast to reply, you must be bored like me!)

im at work :(

hahaha typo can't let it go

If you had only written this, you would have ended on a high note ...

edit: the response to the part that was here is way too predictable, so it's not even worth leaving here.

Then you had s*** all over yourself.

last edited by dice at 13:53:05 04/Nov/06

Man, I bet the previous post was even more emo. Tell me, were you crying when you wrote it?

Thoughts and magical revalations about the nature of the universe mean nothing unless you actually DO something with it. Since none of you have actually DONE anything with your arguments you both loose :D

when have i ever made an emo response? i thought you hated me because i was giving your ego a run for its money

there's one right there ^

Tollazor is Jesus.

I respect this man.

im at work :(

Holy f***! 1am on a sunday morning! You better be getting crazy house-paying overtime!

i wonder who is going to get the last say out of dice and typo...

If I was a betting man,
I'd say as much as typo loves reply to every single post with a 10 word sentence divided somehow up into 15 different qoutes, that he'll call it quits before dice.

Dice.