Gordon Copeland is an arse

[Ixion]

...
Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc... why would sex crime or murder be any different?
===
..

But , to extend your analogy: I know of many people who have started off on a 250 (or such like), "progressed" to a big bike, and later gone back to a small one.

Who is say that exposure to aberrancy in a relative safe (for all) setting may not cause satiation and rejection of the aberrancy. That which seemde novel and exciting at first becomes boring and uninteresting with constant repetition.

I agree with the piscine gentleman. The fact that a small percentage of people think that such a thing as a video game may , perhaps, accentuate possible, but unproven, behaviour in a second small percentage of people, which the first small percentage think objectionable is far too vague a justification for banning things. It comes down to "I don't like this stuff, so it should be banned".

I think that videos of MotoGP racing are likely to encourage antisocial behaviour on the roads. They should be banned because people like Skidmark and The Dover will be more likely to crash after watching them.

[Usarka]

Another question I have is - why did the game makers include it in the game? Was the ability to do this horrific stuff it an unintended consequence of the incredible functionality of the SW? I find that hard to believe given the specific inclusion of controversial characters such as prostitutes, but I'm also mindful that a simple hammer can be used to murder someone - and I'm not saying access to hammers should be restricted.

Driving and killing are not going to go away from games without some major societal revolution.

So, should games featuring driving fast, or shooting etc depict realistic consequences if things go wrong or if things are misused? Or should cars not be able to spin out of control on the streets and kill people, and should bullets only be able to hit "the bad guys"?

One could argue that if you subscribe to the "games influence behaviour" thinking, then watering down the consequences of violence and anti-social activities may make people more likely to commit it.

[ManDownUnder]

Ah, the old chestnut.

Frankly, none of us really has any idea whether violence in the media has anything to do with crime rates. It's fallacious to speak as though such a causative link is evidently probable.

and yet the enabling effects of events progressively sliding back boundaries until the previously unnaceptable becomes normalised, or indeed desirable have ben demonstrated time and time again.

Dommsday cult, Waco, ring of paedophiles, Killer Bees. All groups that have progressively brainwashed each other into acting in a manner they would very likely have not tolerated prior to their exposure to normalising influences.

So let's put some effort into victim support. I know I have...

No problems with that - but a fence at the top of the cliff will reduce the workload on the ambos at the bottom.

You say it will 'enable' such behaviour, I say it will provide a harmless outlet for normal negative impulses that might otherwise have been acted out.

Who's to say who's right? I don't pretend to know for sure.

A good point, and nor do I, but given it's an adrenaline inducing scenario, complete with natural highs etc - do you really think it would do anything else... it's hardly doing something along the lines of disabling or discouraging that behaviour

But one side of the debate argues for restriction, and the other argues for freedom. I know which side I'd prefer to err on. Really, that's all we're discussing here - which side it's better to err on.

Good point - repeal all laws - effective immediately.

You proclaim these causative links as though they're self-evident. Unfortunately, despite the best efforts of men in white coats with letters after their name, no link has ever been proven.

as is the case with anything cognitive. But by all means - lets aim for freedom of action and keep the ambos handy for the victims that may or may not be created through a lack of guidance.

As opposed to, say, the link between poverty and violent crime, which has been shown to be rock-solid time and time again.

not cognitive... quite neat really.

Don't ban videogames; if you must do something to help, fight gambling addictions and starving schoolchildren!

I'd love to - I'd also like to include sexual assault and violence in that list

Well, the ongoing discussion is undeniable proof that someone doesn't agree that it's the end of the story. The statement I made is simply a rhetorical expression of the strength of my opinion.

Noted

[ManDownUnder]

But , to extend your analogy: I know of many people who have started off on a 250 (or such like), "progressed" to a big bike, and later gone back to a small one.

That's not extending it - that's proving it. They did progress on right? How many start on a 250 and never try a bigger one? c'mon - percentages... I'd estimate 95%+

The fact that a small percentage of people think that such a thing as a video game may , perhaps, accentuate possible, but unproven, behaviour in a second small percentage of people, which the first small percentage think objectionable is far too vague a justification for banning things. It comes down to "I don't like this stuff, so it should be banned".

aaaa yes - but of those expertly qualified in the area, committed to research and understand (i.e. those one would turn to for advice) - how many... percentages will do - I'd go for 50% plus, possibly 80%

[jrandom]

All groups that have progressively brainwashed each other...

You would equate the acceptance and social pressure of a peer group with exposure to entertainment media?

I think one is orders of magnitude more powerful than the other.

a fence at the top of the cliff will reduce the workload on the ambos at the bottom.

It also stops me from enjoying the view, and people who actually want to jump (or throw someone else off) won't be deterred.

Let's not stretch the metaphor too far, though.

do you really think it would do anything else...

Why, yes... yes, I do. That's more or less what this is all about, isn't it? We disagree on cause and effect, or at least I hold the position that cause and effect must be provable before it should be used as a justification for restricting personal freedom.

Good point - repeal all laws - effective immediately.

Nope, just the laws that try to restrict people's behaviour and activities based on unproven theories.

... the case with anything cognitive... not cognitive... quite neat really.

Indeed. Things with proven causative links to violent crime? Pour whatever resources one can into stamping 'em out. Works for me.

But banning 'cognitive' stuff? Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime', dude, and anyone who wants to take away my freedom to think what I like will have to lift it from my cold dead skull.

Funny, isn't it, that one can never prove those 'cognitive' behavioural links, and even funnier how that doesn't immediately make it obvious to all that laws attempting to use said unproven links to justify restricting people's activities are a bad idea...

sexual assault and violence in that list

Well, that's 'ambulance' stuff. I was making the point that things can be targeted that have been proven to be precursors of sexual assault and violence, such as basic childhood neglect and various elements of the poverty cycle like drug and gambling addiction.

That's what I call a useful fence at the top of the cliff.

[Ixion]

That's not extending it - that's proving it. They did progress on right? How many start on a 250 and never try a bigger one? c'mon - percentages... I'd estimate 95%+


..

Actually , quite a few. Certainly more than 5%. More like 50% . You are constricting the argument illogically. The correct logic is 'those who start off on a 250 and never get a bigger bike'. That includes the very large number who get a bike, try it, decide it is not for them (or mum/partner/girl fiend decides for them) and move on. That is a very large number indeed. And directly analagous: many people will wonder what all this GTA4 fuss is about, try the game a few times, and decide they don't like it. But even 5% would be sufficient, since it is less than the percentage of people who progress to big bikes and kill themselves thereon - or , in terms of the original argument, the percentage of people who "act out" their antisocial tendancies by way of computer games, and, thus relieved (so to speak) , do not progess to "act them out" in real life, is greater than the percentage who progress from the virtual acting out to the real acting out (even disregarding the very strong argument that the latter would have 'progressed' to real life mayhem regardless)

I see no reason at all to suppose that anti social criomes of violence are worse now thna they were when I was young (before com puter games were invented). rather, by personal observation, the reverse. So if computer games DO foster such behaviour their effect is being more than offset by some other unknown and unspecified factor acting in the other direction. I invoke Mr Occam.

[ManDownUnder]

You would equate the acceptance and social pressure of a peer group with exposure to entertainment media?

I think one is orders of magnitude more powerful than the other.

so you're happy with the fact the entertainment media is a thought leader in itself, and that others you identify with that play and enjoy the same activities (in this case a computer game) influences behaviour?

Very big of you.

It also stops me from enjoying the view, and people who actually want to jump (or throw someone else off) won't be deterred.

Let's not stretch the metaphor too far, though.

Credit where it's due man - that was cheesy... funny - but cheesy

Why, yes... yes, I do. That's more or less what this is all about, isn't it? We disagree on cause and effect, or at least I hold the position that cause and effect must be provable before it should be used as a justification for restricting personal freedom.

It takes an athlete how long to get addicted to exercise? They get the addiction through adrenaline inducing activity. Anything reliably producing adrenaline is addictive for some (racing bikes comes to mind).

Not 100% proven sure, but far from disproven, and common sense suggests the link is a strong one.

Nope, just the laws that try to restrict people's behaviour and activities based on unproven theories.

Remove restrictions on tobacco sales too then - the link between that and any health issues is far from proven - hotly contested in fact, unless you take into consideration those offering a supportive argument have a vested interest.

Indeed. Things with proven causative links to violent crime? Pour whatever resources one can into stamping 'em out. Works for me.

Those links are as proven as the links to media exposure's influence on violence dude.

Check out any research describing rate of violence amoung children (or longer term violence rates) among adults reklative to their exposure to violent media. They are not causitive links - they do suggest influence on the behaviour though - especially those predisposed and under the influence of other complimenting factors (a violent home, drugs int he house etc)

But banning 'cognitive' stuff? Orwell called that 'thoughtcrime', dude, and anyone who wants to take away my freedom to think what I like will have to lift it from my cold dead skull.

I'm not calling for any such thing. I'm talking about the active involvement in an activity that could lead on to have more serious consequences.

To choose another right off the bat to make my point - videos showing people how to make bombs. I'd prefer those to be unavailable too... ...

Funny, isn't it, that one can never prove those 'cognitive' behavioural links, and even funnier how that doesn't immediately make it obvious to all that laws attempting to use said unproven links to justify restricting people's activities are a bad idea...

... perhaps because they're unproven it doesn't automatically free make them a bad idea? Or are you saying we now know it all - and because science hasn't proven something one way or the other we should live with what we can see are highly undesirable consequences?

Well, that's 'ambulance' stuff. I was making the point that things can be targeted that have been proven to be precursors of sexual assault and violence, such as basic childhood neglect and various elements of the poverty cycle like drug and gambling addiction.

Au contraire - it's not proven to be causitive. It is likely to be a factor increasing the likelihood however.

[Usarka]

Interesting post about gta4 at gtaforums It's "a work of art".

[ManDownUnder]

Actually , quite a few. Certainly more than 5%. More like 50% . You are constricting the argument illogically.

Actually you've redefined the original assertion

"bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc" are the exact words. You're saying I'm wrong because a lot give up bikes (and you are right)... but that's not the group originally referred to who "stay on a 250 forever" - i.e. those that continue riding.

Of that group - who has never progressed on to a larger bike?

edit - I there was typo in the first post too - it should have read 95%+ don't (continue on to a bigger bike...)

[Ixion]

Actually you've redefined the original assertion

"bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc" are the exact words. You're saying I'm wrong because a lot give up bikes (and you are right)... but that's not the group originally referred to who "stay on a 250 forever" - i.e. those that continue riding.

Of that group - who has never progressed on to a larger bike?

No. I have not. You original quote, in its context was

"the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc."

Your argument resolves (as far as bikes go) to a statement that anyone who tries out a 250 will not be satisfied and will move on to a bigger bike. Which is patently untrue. Of those who sample two wheels, the majority never move on at all, they move out. Some stay on , but do not 'progress' , and a percentage (quite a small one) 'progress' to larger bikes.

I might be more inclined to accept your argument if you restricted your argument to KB memebers. But that would be like saying that members of a "NZ Car Thieves" site were encouraged by the game.

Most people who start of on two wheels (which includes scooters) never ride a litre bike. Most people who sample GTA4 will never commit a crime.

I could also point out that your argument is flawed as regards to speed: not everyone wants to go ever faster. The fact that crusiers are the largest bike segment proves that. Many rides , indeed the vast majority, find something that is sufficient to them and stay there. They have no compulsion to move to a 'next step'.

[ManDownUnder]

Ix - please put it fully into context and you'll find it resumes the assertion I'm making. I'll take advantage of Occam to make my point because I need t run.

Some people use motorcycles to get a thrill. Those that do eventually move beyond a 250 forever because there is potential for more thrill on bigger bikes.

Perpetrators - access to environments that enable them to act out their fantasies, get their thrills - and do it as often as they like without consequence (and with societal sanction). When the buzz wears off ... they want the buzz back... they've been doing "the next best thing" for a month or for years... so... the most obvious next step is...?

That same process happens with drugs, speed, acceleration, bikes (who wants to stay on a 250 forever) etc...

[Mikkel]

You guys have come a long way - sorry to dig out something from a bit further down the pile...

The dog below is a good example of exactly that - someone posted it a few days back and while it's not tasteful that is reality. I find it hard to draw any comparisons between that and the "bang-I'm dead, have another go" attitude I see in a lot of kids, now adults too. War is seen as glorious in games, and also in some parts of society - while anyone that's seen the reality of war will most likely tell you otherwise.

The funny thing about reality is that it, to quite an extend, is subjective. There are more than a few people who doesn't dare looking beyond the tip of their own nose and behold the world at large in its magnificient diversity. As a result, when confronted with the reality of others, these people react illogically. They'll condemn and deny what is foreign to them since it is easier than trying to get their head around the matter. This is the very basis that all phobias (mental or social) stems from.
Many people don't want reality - because it's difficult.

Regarding the dog, that sure manage to provoke some reactions. Distubingly enough, I am reasonably certain that if I had posted an image of some unfortunate person who had gotten their head crushed and had their brains leaking out, it wouldn't have provoked nearly as strong a reaction (it would certainly have been a different reaction). Most likely because we hear about people getting killed and maimed, run over and crushed, etc. every day in the media - however, we do not hear about people shooting dogs very often... If you can not cope with the reality of the fact that animals (humans included) are used and thrown away every day then my suggestion would be that you become a vegetarian.
I'm not saying that you have to like it or be in favour of it - but if you can not accept that reality and the fact that it is the very base upon which you base your lifestyle I would recommend opening your eyes.
As for the dog - this is the commentary that accompany the image on Wikipedia:

Recently shot sled dog in Upernavik, Greenland. The stock of sled dogs in Upernavik are regulated by shooting. A dog shooter is hired for the regulation - the dog is killed on-site by a rifle shot in the head in the open terrain. Afterwards the dog is drawn to a road side, whereafter it is refuse collected. This particular dog was photographed shortly after the shot was fired at a road side. The sled dog stock in Upernavik is decreasing these years. In the last few winters rising temperatures and changed currents in the sea around the island have made it impossible to use sled dogs for hunting and transportation.

Just because you regard a dog as a nice and cuddly pet doesn't mean that is always the role that dogs play across the globe.

Regarding wars - I think that war today is the least glorified it has ever been to be quite honest. Personally I think that is a good thing, although I fear that this is more due to people not wanting to leave the comfort zone I mentioned above rather than any thoughful reflection on the merits of war.

[avgas]

FB & I bought GTA3 the other day...

spoke to the guy at the games shop counter... he said that the only censored part of GTA4 is a 21 sec clip... not the actual game play... & its a big hooohaaaa over nothing as its only a short clip that you can prob find on youtube anyways

Lemme just say that i find it goes further than that.
The sex scenes are well not there.....all you get is a badly acted conversations (B grade porn has better conversations), the blood....well doesn't exist.... at all.
The only thing i have seen more censored was a High-5 episode on TV where they played with bubble wrap.

[avgas]

The dog below is a good example of exactly that - someone posted it a few days back and while it's not tasteful that is reality. I find it hard to draw any comparisons between that and the "bang-I'm dead, have another go" attitude I see in a lot of kids, now adults too. War is seen as glorious in games, and also in some parts of society - while anyone that's seen the reality of war will most likely tell you otherwise.

Yes but you have to ask if this is cause or effect?
While it is easy to say - "I blame the war games for making violence to look cool", it seems it is not so easy to say - "Is there something wrong here, my son likes smashing his toy bulldozer into the wall???"
I used to think that people go psyco from what they have seen, but now i just think some of it was human nature.
Yes i think horrific acts of violence should be penalized. But i think that the effect of going soft on penalizing people has actually brought about MORE violence.
When i got my first speeding ticket my head hung really low going home. Not because i was going to have to pay a fine - but because i knew that my dad was going to kill me. Would someone who has no life feel bad killing someone if it meant that all he was going to get was free accommodation for the next 10? would he feel worse if he knew he had to smash rocks, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 10 years?
Do the games start the violence, or does the violence start the game?
I would like to see a graph of violence vs (time - increase in population)

[ManDownUnder]

Do the games start the violence, or does the violence start the game?
I would like to see a graph of violence vs (time - increase in population)

I honestly think the two have always co-existed, they influence and feed each other to a certain extent and with the advent of a variety of technologies the two are more easily comingling, and violent or undesirable tendencies can be freely indulged in without real consequence.