Shared publicly  - 
Jess Nut's profile photoCaitlyn Bowyer's profile photoJohn Berger's profile photoDavid Dietle's profile photo
+Thom Miller I think you have it right, that the violent video games stem from the culture we have created. But I'm not a social scientist. 

Is it not the same as the 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg?'
Yay for pointless government feel-goodism! Because we have nothing else for our tax dollars to be spent on apparently.
Kids have always played violent games, before video games it was Cops and Robbers, or Cowboys and Indians in the yard. As a society we glorify violence and the people who do it. Ask a kid who he'd want to be and it's something to do with the military, police, firemen, pro wrestling, athletics, etc. All jobs involving danger and violence. No little boy is like "I want to be an accountant, or laywer, or teacher" as a young child. Violent video games are a symptom, not a cause.
+Caitlyn Bowyer It's actually pretty cut and dry; Americans didn't start loving violence when they invented Pong; plenty of history-making acts of violence are from before then.

+John Berger This is a wonderful use of taxpayer money, if it gets answers. Never mind that it's government funded science (always a good thing) but we will most likely get a nice neat little paper that will tell congressmen and religious nuts to shut the hell up.
+David Dietle - Yet all of the studies (not government funded - and from several reputable sources) go unnoticed by those in power. So sure, continue to spend tax money. Woo. Idiots. 

And I get your point, but that is what I said. Violence has been loved since man was first on Earth. Anthropology teaches and proves that fact.  
+Caitlyn Bowyer Yeah... I also remember PC Gamer showing graph after graph of FBI crime stats showing the decline of street violence coinciding with the increase in gaming. I guess that is what I am hoping for; THIS study won't be so easily ignored. Although most of the people we need/want to influence with it don't put a lot of stock in "proof." Their opinion and the Bible are all they need, and evolution and the big bang are the devil.

Maybe the cause of violence is stupid politicians...
Right.  Let's just ignore all of the other studies that have been done that show no correlation.  But that's not the answer we want because our beloved leaders need a scapegoat for what happened in CT.  So, this time the govies will fund a study .. oh, but THIS time they'll pay attention to it, I'm sure.

What a load of rubbish.
+John Berger Cynicism leads to apathy and accomplishes nothing.It doesn't matter if they listen, it makes it easier to dismiss them. Better to route money to unnecessary government studies than to states that want to teach creationism with public funds.
 NASA, education, science... lots of things .  But, no, let's just assume that the money would instead go creationism.  Who's the cynic again?
+Thom Miller Then obviously I've had what little Anthropology classes I've been in taught incorrectly. I apologize for that... but it's not just been there that I've been taught (and done readings of my own) that humanity gravitates towards violence as a response to some action. Maybe I'm just looking at all the wrong things.

/sarcasm Oh well... oops. I was at fault for reporting wrong 'facts' on the Internet. /sarcasm end
+John Berger Are you looking to start an argument? Because you appear to be trying really hard to be confrontational, or maybe that's just how you communicate. Your previous response was very cynical (not to mention the last one); my point was better to funnel the little bit of money it will cost (and is really less than a drop in the bucket compared to the national budget, even lower than PBS), instead of it potentially being funneled toward something actively harmful to society in general.

It was actually very positive in retrospect. Plus, it's going to happen no matter how much we complain, so the least we can do is look for the good and prepare for it.
+Thom Miller Nah, it's cool. I'm a sarcastic brat is all. 

I don't like to run with the story that Sandy Hook and other such issues are 'natural' because there is little to no data as you said.

I think both sides have it 'wrong' though. Introducing more guns (by untrained civilians  is just stupid, where taking all the 'good-guys' guns away is equally as stupid. Around me there's some rather intense views on gun crime, and guns in general. /tangent

I do want to see where this study is taken, and I don't know what good or bad it will do (although it may not have sounded like that). The only thing I do have a problem with is using those kids and teachers (and every other victim of a shooting) as a springboard for politics. 

Edit: Also, bravo for actually spelling out 'for what it's worth' instead of using FWIW.
+David Dietle I would agree if I thought any good would come of it. It's just more government feel-goodism to try to find blame for a tragedy.
+John Berger I disagree in principle, but I can't categorically disagree because it is also likely that it will accomplish absolutely nothing. I just hope it doesn't.
Add a comment...