Gaming Gives You Cancer
<div class="IPBDescription">According to this crackpot...</div> <a href='http://www.homelanfed.com/index.php?id=19058' target='_blank'>HomeLAN Fed has an interview up with Leland Y. Yee who wants to pass a bill to restrict T rated games from anyone under 18</a>. Requiring identification and mandating a $2,000 fine for each offense of selling a T or M rated game to a minor. Some interesting quotes from the interview:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>HomeLAN - Millions of people play "M" and "T" rated first person shooters and yet there has been no real direct link between playing these games and actually committing violent acts. Isn't it possible that playing these games is in fact a cathartic release for the player that might actually keep them from committing real violent acts?</b>
Leland Y. Yee - The scientific evidence from thousands of studies strongly suggests that your premise is wrong. It is worth asking, why as the evidence that shows a causal correlation mounts, the media coverage of these studies decreases and the media's assertions that there is no correlation becomes more disdainful? The type of evidence that suggests a correlation between smoking and lung cancer is the same that suggests a correlation between violent media images and future aggressive behavior. If tobacco conglomerates controlled the message about smoking and lung cancer, it's likely that the public would be confused about that too.
We can also point to the testimony of criminals as further proof. We know that the Columbine killers compared their intended crimes to the game Doom. Earlier this year, a group of Oakland teenagers went on crime spree, stealing cars and committing several murders. One of the perpetrators was quoted as saying, "We played the game by day and lived it by night." The scientific community has put it very simply -- the debate is over.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im not sure where to begin with what is wrong with the above paragraphs. He reffers to these "thousands of reports" twice and yet he never actually gives any info as to what they prove. Who did these tests? What were the conditions? Has he reviewed any of them?
Then he supposedly trys to argue that somehow games are like cancer? What the hell? Last I checked games did not kill you slowly and painfully, and did not keep you addicted for decades. Im pretty sure cancer does not lead to a desire to kill either. Call me wacky but last time I played a football PC game I had no desire whatsoever to tackle people randomly on the street.
Another problem seems to be his "generalization disorder" in which he takes the actions of a very small group of individuals and uses them as supposed evidence that this is how all gamers act. Last I checked Vice City sold a few MILLION copies, and yet he cites the actions of one small group as his basis that all gamers are killers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
HomeLAN - Have you personally played games such as the ones you have mentioned in your proposed bill? If so which ones and what did you think about them in terms of an artistic endeavor?
Leland Y. Yee - I have not personally played these games, however many of my staff members have. I have seen numerous footage pieces of these games, which clearly shows the need for such legislation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats interesting is this guy admits numerous times he has never actually played any of these games, read any of these 1,000's of supposed reports linking violent games to violent behavior, and is going entirely by what a staff member and mother told him.
Whats the difference between a PC game and a movie? I can pick up a PC game and see exactly what it has in it as far as violence and language, etc. Whereas with a movie the rating is by all means useless. I can't count how many PG-13 movies I've seen that had cursing, sexuality, near nudity (Tomb Raider anyone?) and heavy violence.
Hell Kill Bill was rated R and had more bloodshed then World War II, where was the outcry about that? I actually watched Kill Bill, I've been playing violent games since 8 years old (I started with Duke Nukem 3D and moved up to Quake II), and as far as I know I have not commited any murders or crimes in the past 16 years since I was born.
If this guy is the leader of this Anti-Violent-Gaming brigade then I shudder to think how ill informed many of his supporters are. I actually did a bit of searching, I found ALOT of references to this mythical "1,000 studies" yet I can't actually find any of them. Here is a quote from the <a href='http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm' target='_blank'>American Academy of Pediatrics</a> on violent games:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music. <b>More study is needed in this area, and we urge that resources and attention be directed to this field.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The AAP also reffers to these "1,000 studies" and yet they themselves admit there hasn't been enough research done about gaming's impact on children. So what the **** is it? On one hand they say they have 1,000 reports that gaming is violent, on another they say they need more research! WHAT THE HOLY HELL?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>HomeLAN - Millions of people play "M" and "T" rated first person shooters and yet there has been no real direct link between playing these games and actually committing violent acts. Isn't it possible that playing these games is in fact a cathartic release for the player that might actually keep them from committing real violent acts?</b>
Leland Y. Yee - The scientific evidence from thousands of studies strongly suggests that your premise is wrong. It is worth asking, why as the evidence that shows a causal correlation mounts, the media coverage of these studies decreases and the media's assertions that there is no correlation becomes more disdainful? The type of evidence that suggests a correlation between smoking and lung cancer is the same that suggests a correlation between violent media images and future aggressive behavior. If tobacco conglomerates controlled the message about smoking and lung cancer, it's likely that the public would be confused about that too.
We can also point to the testimony of criminals as further proof. We know that the Columbine killers compared their intended crimes to the game Doom. Earlier this year, a group of Oakland teenagers went on crime spree, stealing cars and committing several murders. One of the perpetrators was quoted as saying, "We played the game by day and lived it by night." The scientific community has put it very simply -- the debate is over.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Im not sure where to begin with what is wrong with the above paragraphs. He reffers to these "thousands of reports" twice and yet he never actually gives any info as to what they prove. Who did these tests? What were the conditions? Has he reviewed any of them?
Then he supposedly trys to argue that somehow games are like cancer? What the hell? Last I checked games did not kill you slowly and painfully, and did not keep you addicted for decades. Im pretty sure cancer does not lead to a desire to kill either. Call me wacky but last time I played a football PC game I had no desire whatsoever to tackle people randomly on the street.
Another problem seems to be his "generalization disorder" in which he takes the actions of a very small group of individuals and uses them as supposed evidence that this is how all gamers act. Last I checked Vice City sold a few MILLION copies, and yet he cites the actions of one small group as his basis that all gamers are killers.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
HomeLAN - Have you personally played games such as the ones you have mentioned in your proposed bill? If so which ones and what did you think about them in terms of an artistic endeavor?
Leland Y. Yee - I have not personally played these games, however many of my staff members have. I have seen numerous footage pieces of these games, which clearly shows the need for such legislation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whats interesting is this guy admits numerous times he has never actually played any of these games, read any of these 1,000's of supposed reports linking violent games to violent behavior, and is going entirely by what a staff member and mother told him.
Whats the difference between a PC game and a movie? I can pick up a PC game and see exactly what it has in it as far as violence and language, etc. Whereas with a movie the rating is by all means useless. I can't count how many PG-13 movies I've seen that had cursing, sexuality, near nudity (Tomb Raider anyone?) and heavy violence.
Hell Kill Bill was rated R and had more bloodshed then World War II, where was the outcry about that? I actually watched Kill Bill, I've been playing violent games since 8 years old (I started with Duke Nukem 3D and moved up to Quake II), and as far as I know I have not commited any murders or crimes in the past 16 years since I was born.
If this guy is the leader of this Anti-Violent-Gaming brigade then I shudder to think how ill informed many of his supporters are. I actually did a bit of searching, I found ALOT of references to this mythical "1,000 studies" yet I can't actually find any of them. Here is a quote from the <a href='http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm' target='_blank'>American Academy of Pediatrics</a> on violent games:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people, preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music. <b>More study is needed in this area, and we urge that resources and attention be directed to this field.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The AAP also reffers to these "1,000 studies" and yet they themselves admit there hasn't been enough research done about gaming's impact on children. So what the **** is it? On one hand they say they have 1,000 reports that gaming is violent, on another they say they need more research! WHAT THE HOLY HELL?
Comments
Don't get me wrong, i don't support his ignorant babbling for one second, that guy is an idiot.
On the whole violnet crime has been down since the victorian age when they didnt have films, rap music, games.....
On the whole violnet crime has been down since the victorian age when they didnt have films, rap music, games..... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean from when we used to kill each other in wars where if you had a wound you were as good as dead anyway from blood loss or a sickness?
Don't get me wrong, i don't support his ignorant babbling for one second, that guy is an idiot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
but to be honest, there are only like a few games that have bbfc ratings... gta, hoolagns, and both SoFs. apart from that i cant find any. besides, if games are "inciting" violent behavior, just rate them as films. but it has come to my attention that such supposed reasoning for these crimes takes place in america.
1.) the doom spree of 94
2.) the Sof style thing in mexico
3.) the matrix defense for the murder charge.
y only in america. i'll tell u, because its the easiest place to buy a gun. a .45 caliber 1911 can be purchased for a little over $1000 US. banning guns would be a brighter idea if u ask me
Of course, I'm 20 so this doesn't affect me, and probably would have **** me off just like movie ratings did when I couldn't go see a movie that I wanted, but... meh. They're there for a reason.
[edit: We can't ban guns. I don't know where you are but it's in our consitution. Also, there are way too many people who live waay out in no where who would object. It'd never pass in congress, at least, not any time soon.]
I'm going to sue the makers of Rome: Total War for making a game that encourages people to kill my Irish ancestors and portrays them as celtic savages. Moronic crap brain shytebird candyass wimps rule the world.
I'm going to sue the makers of Rome: Total War for making a game that encourages people to kill my Irish ancestors and portrays them as celtic savages. Moronic crap brain shytebird candyass wimps rule the world. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reminds me of a <a href='http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2003-11-26&res=l' target='_blank'>recent Penny Arcade strip</a>.
Of course, I'm 20 so this doesn't affect me, and probably would have **** me off just like movie ratings did when I couldn't go see a movie that I wanted, but... meh. They're there for a reason. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But I don't know of any movies that are being blamed for various criminal acts. Or movie companies that are being sued for supposedly encouraging a shooting. And the problem with movie ratings, is that they aren't at all accurate. I mean Tomb Raider was PG-13 for partial nudity and some other stuff, if any PC game so much as showed a nipple it would get slapped with a M or AO rating.
Another thing is, kids are only allowed into R rated movies if accompanied by an adult (because we all know, those minimum wage ticket counter clerks actually care). Why? Because its known that violent movies have influenced violent acts. We know that wrestling influenced a teen to try a move on a younger child, resulting in that child dying. We know that Bevis and Butthead influenced a kid to severly burn himself playing with a lighter and aerosol can. Its easy to see that movies and TV can influence kids. Finding Nemo resulted in many cases of young children attempting to flush their fish down the toilet for example.
However, this has not been proven with PC games. All that has been shown is that with GTA3 selling near 7 million copies, only 1 crime has been linked to it. And that link is very shaky, as it seems the defendants are only using it as a twinkie defense. And the parents of those defendants have filed lawsuits against Take 2 Interactive.
So its not that ratings should not be enforced, but rather nothing has shown that these games are actually creating such a negative impact on kids that they NEED to have such severe penalties. Its a bill based on flawed logic and shaky science, and that is never a good thing.
Although I admit, at least if age limits were enforced, the gaming industry wouldn't have to worry about stupid lawsuits.
also its a simple known fact, there aint as much gun crime in britain as in america. i've lived in some of the roughest areas in british soil (belfast, londonderry, brixton, glasgow hieghts and newcastle downtown), and gotta say, never 1ce saw a gun in my presence. but i went to new york and saw a guy holding up a shop owner with a sawed-off within my 2nd week. now tell me thats just because of a historical document that sais u can defend <u>your</u> land.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I don't know of any movies that are being blamed for various criminal acts<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
matrix defence, 2001, sum kids built a stockpile of <b>guns</b> and tried goin on a killing spree, unsucessfully. they used the defence because they wanted to back up their insanity plee. if they truely believed the matrix theorum, then they could just run, or plee innocence.
A man shoots up a Starbucks and they link Coffee with violence?
Or a person watches Barney and and then turns out to be a child molester. so it was being able to see all the kids on that Barney tape that caused him to end up a child molester?
Or better yet, A person watches too many action movies and decides that hes Steven Segal and goes out on a killing spree. I guess its Steven Segal's fault because he showed how easy it was to snap necks in all of his movies!
A man shoots up a Starbucks and they link Coffee with violence?
Or a person watches Barney and and then turns out to be a child molester. so it was being able to see all the kids on that Barney tape that caused him to end up a child molester?
Or better yet, A person watches too many action movies and decides that hes Steven Segal and goes out on a killing spree. I guess its Steven Segal's fault because he showed how easy it was to snap necks in all of his movies! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
requires the right timing... if u dont lif the neck just as the head reaches it blind spot, no point
On the whole violnet crime has been down since the victorian age when they didnt have films, rap music, games..... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean from when we used to kill each other in wars where if you had a wound you were as good as dead anyway from blood loss or a sickness? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well yes and no, I mean muggings murders etc were much more comman then than now.
also its a simple known fact, there aint as much gun crime in britain as in america. i've lived in some of the roughest areas in british soil (belfast, londonderry, brixton, glasgow hieghts and newcastle downtown), and gotta say, never 1ce saw a gun in my presence. but i went to new york and saw a guy holding up a shop owner with a sawed-off within my 2nd week. now tell me thats just because of a historical document that sais u can defend <u>your</u> land.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, you're preaching to the choir. I pretty much agree with you, it's just one of those things that isn't going to pass congress. Period.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Although I admit, at least if age limits were enforced, the gaming industry wouldn't have to worry about stupid lawsuits. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's probably the most important thing you said. While I'm not sure I agree with you on the rest of your statements, I think this is about as good a reason as any to enforce the limits. That, and there are limits on just about the rest of the other mediums, print, movies, tv, etc.
[edit: We can't ban guns. I don't know where you are but it's in our consitution. Also, there are way too many people who live waay out in no where who would object. It'd never pass in congress, at least, not any time soon.] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
err, "The right to bear arms and form a militia" is in the constitution. Because the people were afraid of the british taking over the new country again. Such a law is ancient and obsolete, and i believe it is currently illegal to form a militia under the new terrorism legislation. and the "right to bear arms" referred to pitchforks and knifes and muskets, not uzis and sniper rifles and handguns.
blah. sorry for being OT, here; i strongly agree with the restrictions based on age. there should be a similar restriction to a teen seeing an R rated movie as for him to access a M rated game.
Retail prices may also rise as a precaution to legal expenses. And one other thing: What if you buy a game online? How do they verify your age? Just because you have a credit card dosen't mean its yours.
Theres also the piracy problem. What would make it wrong for an underage person to download a game they couldn't legally buy? Are they really pirating by downloading something they couldnt purchase in the first place? Sure their parents could have bought them the game, but its a circular argument, because if the parents bought the game then the rating system was useless in the first place. Increased piracy due to mandatory carding would only lead to higher priced games, lower sales, and less releases as publishers tighten their belts and only choose to publish games which are sure fire hits. Meaning less innovation, less variety, less gibs to keep the rating as low as possible, everyone loses.
sigh, old people always try to ruin the fun for a few of the idiots who cant control themselves...
-- btw, im not 12 just to clerify that.
i haev gaem cancer, i go now to shoot thingz wiht teh rocketz![/stupidity]
yeah, they guy hasnt heard about the games who play games as a release, because <b>the're not the ones shooting things</b>
the same reason people think planes are more dangerous than cars, plane crashes make the news
i can see it now ... This is CNN, our top story today: Black Mage spared Jefe's life today because he got a parakill
[/Evil dude]
Okay, let's see in this instance... That's like sueing the company that made the table you sat at when you got food poisoning from an eat-in diner.
But, seriously, no matter how fanatical you are about this issue, there is evidence that <b>children who haven't yet developed set morale grounds</b> can be adversly affected by violent media. The real problem is that parents sat kids in front of a TV and went away, leaving them to their own anti-social world of violence instead of taking responsibility and teaching them what's right and what's wrong.
Once you've done that, I believe you can play as much as you want and you're fine. People in general and fundamentally conservative, meaning they don't like to change their minds. If they think killing is wrong, no amount of GTA:VC will make them think it's right. It just doesn't work that way. If they've no concept of killing at all, and the first thing they do is play GTA:VC, of course they're gonna think killing random people on the street's the right thing to do.
The message here is, those with children now, and those who plan to have children at some point must be willing to put the time in to teach those kids the right way to act. That's part of the commitment you agreed to when you and your significant other did the dirty.
And I for one am SICK and TIRED of this country not taking responsibility for it's actions.
/rant over
Now im not saying GTA:VC to everybody, there are some people who I think much to young to have these kinds of games. I know one of the little brothers friends who is like 9, laughs histericaly while playing GTA, which I find really eery. I think when somebody young enough is exposed to these kinds of things before really having the ideas of right vs wrong pounded into their head, it can mess them up pretty good. But really if a parent neglects their kid enough to get them GTA:VC when they are like 8, or not to have set in morale boundaries strong enough. Its the parent who screwed up pretty bad.
On a last though: Games are only what you make of them.