|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:54 am
Deathfrost Nah... Too much to do for me to be dead... Maybe next time kid... biggrin p***y
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:59 am
Careful, the admins may think you're soliciting... wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:00 am
Deathfrost Careful, the admins may think you're soliciting... wink only yours
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:06 am
You're mine?!?... When did this happen?!?... Should I be concerned about this?!?... (lol I am so bored right now... Because I can just barely see the screen... Told Mai I would sleep tonight, so I will probably go in a moment...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:10 am
Deathfrost You're mine?!?... When did this happen?!?... Should I be concerned about this?!?... (lol I am so bored right now... Because I can just barely see the screen... Told Mai I would sleep tonight, so I will probably go in a moment...) it happened when i ate your rear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:33 pm
I really doubt that kid... As that won't ever happen... Not for you nor anyone else...etrom toa it happened when i ate your rear
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:24 am
Deathfrost I really doubt that kid... As that won't ever happen... Not for you nor anyone else...etrom toa it happened when i ate your rear were you that drunk at the time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:32 am
lol do you kiss your girlfriend with that mouth, kid?... Firstly, I haven't gotten drunk since February 4, 1996... Secondly, I would not ever let that happen... Thirdly, if you did somehow find any part of me that anyone would want to eat, that would be the worst possible part... twisted (had a lot more written, but deleted most of it...)etrom toa were you that drunk at the time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:21 am
Deathfrost lol do you kiss your girlfriend with that mouth, kid?... Firstly, I haven't gotten drunk since February 4, 1996... Secondly, I would not ever let that happen... Thirdly, if you did somehow find any part of me that anyone would want to eat, that would be the worst possible part... twisted (had a lot more written, but deleted most of it...)etrom toa were you that drunk at the time? stop deleting stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2013 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:40 pm
lol but I figure that it's a waste to type up a bunch of stuff that no one is going to read... You made a clear a while back that you don't like reading long things, when you said "tl;dr" or something like that... & seeing as how you're the only person here a lot of the time, I have tried not to write a lot when speaking with you... Would you like to see the argument I sent to my teacher?... It's very long... Also, I meant to tell you, I liked your accent in that video (in an "I like accents & wish I had one" kind of way, so not in a "let's get married" kind of way...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:41 pm
Deathfrost lol but I figure that it's a waste to type up a bunch of stuff that no one is going to read... You made a clear a while back that you don't like reading long things, when you said "tl;dr" or something like that... & seeing as how you're the only person here a lot of the time, I have tried not to write a lot when speaking with you... Would you like to see the argument I sent to my teacher?... It's very long... Also, I meant to tell you, I liked your accent in that video (in an "I like accents & wish I had one" kind of way, so not in a "let's get married" kind of way...) even tho i say tl;dr, i read everything. and yes, i would like it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:47 pm
Please don't quote this whole thing, as it would take up too much space lol
Many people seem to share the same misconception that violent video games (or media) cause violence. When people decide to join the military, it’s not usually because of something that happened in a video game, and as much as the military is loved, for their faithful service to our country, I know quite a few of them that are more violent than any video game. There are far more factors at work that turn our children into violent criminals, the most prominent (in a lot of these cases) simply being BAD PARENTING (seriously just playing devil’s advocate on that part).
Some mistakes are made repeatedly, some are only made once or twice then we finally get the point, but the fact still remains that we all make them. Video games can be some of the most fun times your child can have, but if you continually make the mistake of not knowing which games to buy, or just buying a game because it has a pretty package, a funny name, or a non-threatening look to it, you are making a mistake. While some children may, in fact, differentiate between fiction and real life, there is no need to tempt fate by buying them something or allowing them to watch or read something that isn’t for their maturity level.
If you take a child to a museum and then for days afterward they make lewd remarks based on what they saw there (like the “Statue of David” for example), who is to blame? The museum, for having that statue (or more likely just a copy of it)? You for bringing an eight year old to a place that is usually boring for eight year olds? Or the eight year old for only having the maturity level of an eight year old?
The same can be said of violent media. If your child, husband, wife, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, mom, dad, coworker, boss, friend, etcetera, doesn’t have a maturity level equal to or greater than that needed to differentiate between what is real and what isn’t, then they do not need to be anywhere near any form of violent, fantasy, scifi, or any other genre of media. We have all had someone that we know, or are at least acquainted with, who is this kind of person. It is not always that they are mentally deficient or anything of that sort (thought there are some people who are), for this to happen, but that doesn’t make it any less disheartening to see how “real” they think the gaming world is.
Reading a few websites, I saw some really interesting details:
“From a Marketing perspective, Smash is dangerous because of the content/playstyle of the game. Iconic Nintendo mascots beating the hell out of each other is an awesome gameplay experience, no one will challenge that fact, but from an overall Marketing view it’s, well, dangerous. The popular image of Mario, the widely publicly recognized one, can never be of him beating the hell out of Princess Peach or, say, of Link tossing Zelda into the fires of Brinstar, Pikachu hitting Jigglypuff with a baseball bat, so on, so forth. Unlike most other fighting game characters, the Nintendo mascots have far-reaching brands and franchises unto themselves that have to be considered and protected in a bigger picture view. EVO would have taken the character representations out of the hands of Nintendo’s control, boiled them down to pure violence, and broadcast it directly to 125,000 people. It’s not hard to see why Nintendo would be a little gun-shy.” - Kyle Mercury
While this may seem to be a bit funny to those of us reading it, it also shows how a company may feel about a violent video game. In these times of completely frivolous lawsuits, and pseudo psychological disorders (yes there are real ones too), one would not be surprised if someone tried to blame their son beating his sister, daughter, cousin, mom, wife, niece, aunt, or girlfriend due to seeing “The popular image of Mario, the widely publicly recognized one, can never be of him beating the hell out of Princess Peach” or “Link tossing Zelda into the fires of Brinstar”. Why? Because some people even consider “Mario Kart” to be violent, and according to the news, and a lot of people:
“Video games have, over the preceding decades, become the proverbial wolf to the country's many violent, public acts. The tenuous direct, casual connection between violence and video games has become so studied, so overwrought with politics and scapegoat finger pointing that it's becoming white noise. It was video games, purely video games, that the NRA blamed for the Newtown shooting. It was video games that became Columbine's distraction.” - Brian Crecente
While I will agree that there should be more studies into the effects of video games on the human psyche, there has yet to be any correlation as to whether or not they are specifically responsible for people becoming violent. To quote a person from another site:
“Always playing the blame game and not trying to actually fiz the problem. The problem likely lies in the pyche of the people doing these crimes and likely doesn’t stem from playing mario kart or call of duty. Gee, while we are at it. People used and still do hunt for food on a regular basis, does that mean they are going to go mental and kill people? Probably not. If you have never played a video game with violence in any variety (if you can find one) or watched any tv/movie without it and are vegan as well does that mean you are incapable of getting a weapon and going mental, no. Solutions, not blaming is what we need.” -dusklurker
The reason that “dusklurker” was quoted, is that they said exactly what I was thinking (though dusklurker’s typos weren’t fixed). As was stated plenty of times before, people need to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of constantly blaming others. Like if one turns in an assignment late, due to poor Wi-Fi connectivity, can one blame the teacher for taking points off? No, because it was one’s responsibility to find another way to get the assignment turned in. The solution being that next time, one should get to another Wi-Fi connection early enough to get it turned in on time.
We also have people who think that just because a game has a little bit of violence, it means that there is nothing of substance to the game. In other words, needlessly violent games. These games would include (but are not limited to) every entry into the “Saints Row”, “True Crime”, “Crackdown”, and “Grand Theft Auto” series of games, but, with that being said, how many of us use games like this just to blow off steam, relieve stress, or alleviate anger? The reason usually being that they don’t really need a person to use their brains just to play the game, so you can just hop in one of the vehicles in game, run people over, shoot people, or do any number of other crazy things (like in “Crackdown” once you reach a certain level with your agility, you get a “wingsuit”, which makes it where you can glide, in “Saints Row: The Third” you can use a rather “erotic” baseball bat or a weirdly (yet correctly) named weapon called the “Fart In A Jar”, in “True Crime: Streets of L.A.” after completing a certain task, you can drive around as “Snoop Doggie Dog”, and in “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” you can literally fly a car).
There are many reasons why these types of games are not for younger people, nor are they for someone who clearly lacks maturity. This doesn’t meant that these games are inherently bad, it just means that one probably should think twice before buying one of them for their eight year old. There are also games that people consider to be violent just by their association to other games, as well as games that only have “cartoon violence” and/or “comic mischief”.
“Joining the battlefield are popular Nintendo franchises such as Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, Super Mario 3D Land and Wii Sports Resort amongst others. The official ESRB rating gives them an ‘E’ for everyone, but they have underlying levels of ‘cartoon violence’ with a pinch of ‘comic mischief’. According to the chart only 32 per cent of the 50 listed titles contained no violence while 38 per cent were listed as ‘E’ by the ESRB, and 38 per cent contained realistic firearms. If ‘cartoon violence’ is excluded, just over half of the games listed carry a violent label. Of course, The Guardian is clearly underlining the core violence that exists in video games, but is slipping a few bananas behind your vehicle in Mario Kart a step too far?” - silvershadowfly
While this quote clearly pokes fun at the whole “violence in video games” thing there at the end, it does pose a question. At what point do we actually draw the line on what we consider to be actually violent? A person eating a hamburger can seem violent if looked at from the perspective of the hamburger, or some (but not all) vegetarians/vegans, but does that mean that we should all of a sudden stop every person on the planet from eating hamburgers just because some moron with an ax to grind about gay marriage burnt down a church that offered a wedding to a gay couple, while he was eating a hamburger? Again, at what point does personal responsibility become a factor, and at what point do we as individuals stop trying to blame someone else for what we do?
There are all kinds of things that people seem to think will help them with their agenda against video games, but a lot of them seem to make even less sense than that analogy I just did with the hamburger:
“It's not every day that you can say a Fox News personality makes a rational argument regarding any of today's hottest trends and hobbies, but stranger things have happened. In a recent segment of his talk show, John Stossel speaks to Franklin Graham, leader of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, on the issue of violent videogames and whether they should be taxed or not. Graham thumbs the Bible for a good while as Stossel looks on, dumbfounded that such bile could drip from a person's mouth, then he proceeds to "drop the bomb." Many of Stossel's arguments are facts we've heard countless times on games outlets -- youth violence has decreased as violent games in the market increased -- but it's refreshing to hear a major news network actually acknowledge that the anti-games agenda is ridiculous. Way to go, Stossel.” - Tony Ponce Destructoid Associate Editor
So basically, from the NRA, to the church, everyone wants to blame violence on video games? Come on, what’s next, blaming video games for people’s bad driving skills? The reason people are violent, is because they CHOOSE to be violent. This is basically like saying that it’s Disney’s fault if some kid jumped out of a window after watching “Peter Pan”. Or that it’s Pixar’s fault that some kid started saying that his “Buzz Lightyear” doll told him to stab the neighbor’s cat.
Nothing on this planet can really be considered inherently bad, just as nothing on this planet can be considered inherently good. So again, I will play devil’s advocate, and pretend as though I am on the side of the “angels” on this one for just a bit. Say they are completely successful in getting rid of all violent media, there would be a lot of gaps in our ability to learn, entertain, or be entertained. There would be no history books, why? Because those books are full of stories about war, and war is violent, so nope, they gotta go. Most of Shakespeare’s plays would be gone, why? Because most of them involve violence, so they have to go. The bible would be gone, why? Because it has some of the most horrifically violent stories even contrived. Most forms of music would be gone, why? Because often times music, even when it’s not, can be easily considered violent by some people. Food would be gone, so no more eating, why? Because the chewing motion could be considered violent. And these are just the things that most people aren’t really thinking about.
Getting back on track, I also did some research into whether or not motion-capture technology would make things worse, as far as if they would make people more likely to become violent due to a video game:
“The link between violent video games and aggression has been firmly established, and there was good reason to think that motion-capture technology would only make things worse. After all, wouldn’t literally raising your arm to strike someone in the virtual world create a hostile mindset that could easily leak out into real-world behavior?
Well, it’s not true, at least according to one newly published study. A research team led by Eric Charles of Penn State Altoona finds that this increasingly popular type of videogaming does not lead to increased levels of aggression.
“While we found evidence suggesting that violent video game play with analog controls might lead to slight increases in aggressive behavior,” the researchers write in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, “no such effects were found for players using motion-capture controls.”
“Motion-capture technology requires greater physical expenditure. There is evidence that people are less violent after short periods of exercise or exertion.”
Motion-capture, the researchers note, is the “now-ubiquitous technology that allows movements of the player’s body to be translated into movements of the characters in the game.” Given that this ability increases players’ sense of immersion into the virtual world, Charles and his colleagues began their research by suspecting it would “strengthen the relationshipbetween violent video games and violent behaviors.”
In one of their experiments, 87 students spent 20 minutes playing the violent Wii video game Punch-Out!!Half did so in “classic” mode using analog controls, while the other used an updated version utilizing motion-capture technology (which is to say, they physically mimed punching someone as they played).
Immediately afterwards, they took a test designed to reveal aggressive thoughts, including a word-completion task where they were given sets of letters such as “ki–,” which they could complete as either the violent word “kill” or the non-violent “kiss.” They also played a quick-reaction-time game in which they could “punish” their opponents by blasting loud noises at them at any level up to 95 decibels.” -Tom Jacobs
If there were more studies like this, many people would not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of blaming games. The reason so much was quoted from this is because the author of this, the essay you are reading, thought it was necessary. The unknown unknowns are what we need to be more worried about than if our children will learn the bad habit of throwing turtles at other cars while you are driving due to playing “Mario Kart”.
“Consumption of violent video games, movies and television programs is not a significant contributing factor to actual violence, a new study found.
Instead genetic predisposition and upbringing largely determine a person’s propensity for violence, wrote the study’s authors.
The study, published last Friday, was conducted by Christopher Ferguson of the University of Texas A&M, James Ivory of Virginia Polytechnic University and Kevin Beaver of Florida State University. The researchers used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and measured whether a variety of factors — including exposure to violent media, upbringing, and genetics — correlated with criminal behavior.” -Robby Soave
Basically what this means, is that trying to hide behind the defense that “the video games/movies/cartoons/anime/books made me do it,” will not fly. As was previously stated, we all make mistakes, so the best way to get past them is to own up to them and move on from there. This all is to state the fact that the belief that violent media, video games in particular, caused some whackjob to do the violent things that they did, is severely flawed. It would be misleading to say that it is completely wrong to think that someone couldn’t be led astray by a video game, but it’s just as deceitful, if not more so, to pretend that all the world’s problems stemmed from a video game.
While it is generally against my principles to point fingers at anyone, when it comes to placing blame, I must ask a few very simple questions when it comes to violence. If your five year old is cursing you out because your parents spent years drilling into them that you were less than nothing, who do you blame? Do you blame the child for reiterating what they have learned, or the grandparents for teaching it to them? If you allow your children to play a violent video game, watch a violent movie/tv show, read a violent book, or see a violent painting (that is CLEARLY for a more mature person, knowing full well that your child is a bit too impressionable as it is), who do you blame? The game, movie/tv show, book, or painting for being violent, the child for "NOT KNOWING ANY BETTER", or yourself for not paying attention to what the heck was going on with your child?
Again, at what point does personal responsibility become a factor? I have played violent video games, seen violent movies, watched violent television programs, and read violent books for the majority of my life. Does that mean that I should get off unpunished if I go out and massacre a room full of people? NO! Nothing will ever make anyone doing something like that alright! Yet there are those that want to make it seem like we, as human beings, have no control over our own actions. If that were true, then society as a whole has already fallen, we just don't know it yet.
"A typical child in the U.S. watches 28 hours of TV weekly, seeing as many as 8,000 murders by the time he or she finishes elementary school at age 11, and worse, the killers are depicted as getting away with the murders 75% of the time while showing no remorse or accountability. Such TV violence socialization may make children immune to brutality and aggression, while others become fearful of living in such a dangerous society.
With the research clearly showing that watching violent TV programs can lead to aggressive behavior, The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 1985 informing broadcasters and the public of the potential dangers that viewing violence on television can have for children. In 1992, the APA's Task Force on Television and Society published a report that further confirmed the link between TV violence and aggression."
Again, where are the parents/guardians of these children that are watching these "Violent TV programs"? I have said this before and will probably say it many more times in my life: If a person cannot differentiate between reality and what is in a video game, movie, or book, then they do NOT need to be playing video games, watching movies, or reading books. I personally have not ever had a moment where I thought that what I was doing in a game, watching in a movie, or reading in a book was "real". Basically what the quoted paragraph would like to do, is have you believe that violent media (specifically television) is the reason for aggression in children (and yes, I do understand that that is oversimplifying the message they're portraying).
"In 1990, Congress passed the Children's Television Act (CTA), which outlined new regulations for commercial broadcast stations. As a result of the CTA (which was updated in 1996), stations are required to air at least three hours of programming "that furthers the education and informational needs of children 16 years and under in any respect, including children's intellectual/cognitive or social/emotional needs." These programs must be labeled with the designation "E/I" and have clearly stated, written educational objectives. These educational programs generally contain both direct and indirect messages fostering cooperation and compassion rather than aggression. Parents now have positive options when it comes to choosing TV programs for their children. Research on television and violence has also led to the development of content-based rating systems that allow parents to make judgments about the programs' content before allowing their children to watch a show."
I agree with the statements in this paragraph, as it shows that (at least in some capacity) there is someone somewhere in charge who actually had a little common sense. So instead of automatically blaming violent television (in essence blaming someone else) for the violent children, they actually provided an alternative to it, as well as giving a ratings system for PARENTS to use to decide what is OK for their children.
Works Cited:
"Violence in the Media - Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects." Violence in the Media - Psychologists Help Protect Children from Harmful Effects. American Psychological Association, 19 Feb. 2004. Web. 18 Aug. 2013. .
Soave, Robby. "Study: Violent Video Games Do Not Cause Real Violence." The Daily Caller. N.p., 23 May 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013. .
Jacobs, Tom. "Breaking the Link Between Video Games and Aggression." Pacific Standard. Pacific Standard, 15 July 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013. .
Crecente, Brian. "Curing the Country of Gun Violence Requires Research into Video Games Too | Polygon." Polygon. N.p., 15 July 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013. .
Silvershadowfly. "The Guardian Names Mario Kart And Animal Crossing In Violent Video Games Rundown." My Nintendo News. N.p., 02 May 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013. .
Silvershadowfly. "Ex-Nintendo Marketing Expert Says Super Smash Bros. Melee At EVO Is A “Dangerous” Brand." My Nintendo News. N.p., 16 Aug. 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013. .
Ponce, Tony. "John Stossel Wins the Violent Videogames Argument." Destructoid. N.p., 22 June 2013. Web. 17 Aug. 2013. .
etrom toa even tho i say tl;dr, i read everything. and yes, i would like it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:51 pm
Gaia life has been pretty good, though reality has been kicking my sorry butt ten ways from Sunday lol Thankfully, I have aced all but one of my classes, & that was only because ET wouldn't do my homework in that one... mrgreen How's gaia life with you?...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
