1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Teen blames video game for crime spree

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Misu, Nov 15, 2002.

  1. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.


    So this kid has caught on that people are actually buying up the idea that video games are to blame for what 'kids' do... mind you, this punk and his friends are 19 and 18 yo's...

    I suppose that his statement when he goes to court is going to be something along the lines of "yah I had to steal 100 cars - it was the only way to get enough money to then pay a hooker to rejuvenate my health!" Freaking PUNK.
  2. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    How interesting...and how sad.

    In another forum, I made the point that the law has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

    In the ensuing discussion I conceded that criminal law is about personal responsibility, but civil law is not.

    I take it back. Perhaps at one time, our body of law was designed to enforce personal responsibility.

    It has evolved into a mechanism for avoiding that responsibility and for placing blame anywhere except for where it truly belongs.
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    As I read the article the thought occurs to me: even if the video games had an effect on a person committing the crimes, <b>So figging what!</b> When determining guilt the reason should not be considered. Did he do it? That is a yes or no question. Maybe cause should be brought up in the punishment phase. Me, if I got to determine punishment I might consider that somebody that able to be convinced to commit crimes should be locked away longer, he will be doing it again if not locked up.
  4. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Perhaps we should build a huge UNREAL TOURNAMENT area, take these little bastards, give em real guns and let em loose in there for the day with the following rules:

    1 - if you refuse to fight, you die.

    2 - whoever makes it out at the end of the day goes home.

    might give them a little insight into an old fashioned concept folks used to call 'reality'.

    ya know what the problem with the kill-em-all video game generation is? theyve never seen anything even remotely bad in their lives.

    a tour of Nam would probably leave most of them a bit less engrossed with 'ultra realistic' depictions of heads getting blown off.

  5. Misu

    Misu Hey, I saw that.

    You know, I do concede that violent video games have an effect on kids - the younger the person and the more they are exposed, the more the game affects them. However, there is a difference - just because something affects you does not mean you should react to it. Affecting and reacting are 2 different things.

    These kids still have a basic understanding of right and wrong which was ingrained in them when they were mere infants. Millions upon millions of people around the world play these games on a daily basis - and there is only a tiny percentage of people that do crazy things that are then blamed on video games. What does that tell you?

    It tells me that there is something more going on with these particular people, and the fact they all play video games is like saying they're all linked because they all wipe their butts with white TP... Nearly everyone plays these games. If we were to believe those that say video games are the cause of all this crap, then we'd be living in a state of anarchy.
  6. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I respectfully disagree that video games have any effect on children. When I was little, we played real games involving real violence, like "King of the Hill", "Cowboys and Indians", "Cops and Robbers".

    We fought, we struggled, we learned how to work things out......OK, here's something you won't see often. I changed my mind as I was typing.

    We learned how to work things out. We interacted with real people and learned the boundaries of real behavior.

    Video games don't bring that real interaction to the table, so, yeah, I guess they could contribute towards anti-social behavior, if the child is isolated in other ways.
  7. Domh

    Domh Full Member


    Pretty much says it all for me.
  8. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Misu, this is yet another example of how people will deflect blame away from themselves if we are so naive that we will allow it. Other than the obvious story about the boy who shot his teacher(in another thread currently), this makes me think about how so many people sympathize with violent criminals.

    "They were abused as a child...they were neglected...yadda yadda yadda..."

    All I hear is, "Only people who were never abused are responsible for their own actions...only people who got lots of attention from Mom and Dad are responsible for their own actions...yadda yadda yadda..."

    Either way, it sounds like bullshit to me. People are responsible for their own actions. Period. Is some idiot drives drunk and slams into another motorist and kills him, he(the drunk) is responsible - not the bartender, not the people he was drinking with, not the cops for not taking him off the street before causing an accident, not the company who manufactures the alcoholic beverage the man was drinking, not the guy who bought him the drinks, not his Sunday school teacher, and not his parents(unless the man is like six years old). I can not believe that a juror or an allegedly intelligent judge could possibly rule in favor of idiots like these MEN(18 and 19 year olds are NOT children!).

    Excuse me while I go rob a bank. If I get caught, I am going to sue my employer for not paying me enough money.
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Great summary, Domh.
  10. FrankF

    FrankF #55170-054

    I grew up before computers and video games. I used to be into designing electronics stuff and chemistry sets and building bombs, treehouses, and forts. My mother was always going to college for more classes so she never spent any time with me. My father was an engineer and he spent so time with me but not much. I never learned to play football, basketball, or baseball. Not interested. Wasn't interested in Boy Scouts either. I figured they were mostly full of shit anyway. So I was just the neighborhood nerd who was into scientific stuff or reading all the time that nobody else understood. Never had many friends... I guess my nerdiness or geekiness turned everybody off. I remember getting beat up several times because I am white, or because people just didn't like nerds or geeks. But at 46 year old I am doing fine. Good thing I don't work for the Post Office....
  11. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

  12. RRedline

    RRedline Veteran MMember

    Oh, the Onion! I was almost fooled. :)
  13. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    "Pretty much says it all for me."

    Come on you guys. You're sounding like a bunch of old foggies lamenting how the younger generation has gone bad. Its the same story every generation isn't it. "Don't make 'em like they did when I was young". Its kids having FUN!
  14. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Yea Frank and you've only got a dollar to your name. Damn video games. I just earned 5 so I can say that.:)
  15. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    This issue of the effect of violence on viewers is a perrenial. Its a cut and dried issue that SOME viewers are effected SOME of the time and I think most agree on that one by the look of it.
    But think back to say 10-15 years ago or so and reflect on how tame the movies and PC gaming was. If one of todays games or movies were shown back then can you imagine the outburst from concerned citizens. The younger gneration always freaks out the parents in every era. In the current era you can't blame the violent fare available on PC games or the movies for the resulting bad behavior of some. Bad apples will always find a way to misbehave and there will always be guesses as to the why's and wherefore's. Most of the time the guesses will be wrong.
  16. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Your point is very well taken.

    I think, however, that the curve at which social degeneration increases is an exponential one, just like the increase in technological engineering and the increase in population.

    Agreed, each generation always bitches about the depravity of the one that follows, but its not that simple.

    My grandparents bitched because my generation couldnt stop watching TV and swore too much.

    Im bitching because todays young people are killing each other in a way the never used to, doing drugs in a way the never used to, getting pregnant in a way the never used to, etc.

    The complaints the same, but as time goes by the reasons for the complaint clearly get worse.

    Must be the nature of social evolution.
  17. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Domhain, the issue of long term social change is an interesting one that never seems to be discussed when violence on the media is the topic. But it should be of course. With each generation the standards of what is acceptable behaviour are altered. There is a gradual uping of the ante with such things as language and drug use it seems. To get the correct perspective on the long term changes requires a bit of resaerch looking back atleast a few generations.

    Its certainly true to say that standards of acceptable language have changed radically. Sex has come out of the closet and attitudes to homosexuality have changed. But change does not mean a lowering of standards rather that a broader range of behaviours are considered acceptable. The "moral backbone" of society is not necessarily threatened because of these changes.
    In Victorian times for example, morals were strict, a lot more so than today. But those standards were not in existence prior to that era so perhaps what we are seeing is standards being in a constant state of flux. What goes around comes around. Each generation feels the need to break the shackles that their parents generation instilled/imposed on them. But at the same time a lot of the standards instilled in the same generation remain unthreatened.
    Changes sometimes need to be taken to the extreme before the shackles truly feel that they have been shed. It is only then that a possible return to or atleast a movement in the opposite direction can occur. To make the point, language in films not so long ago was conservative. We never heard Gregory Peck say "fuck" in To Kill a Mockingbird but if the movie where made today Tom Hanks would be into it I'm sure. So today at the other end of the continuum there are movies where the language is so graphical that every other word is fuck. OK. So now we get the point. Its acceptable to say ANYTHING on screen. Once that point is reached the amount of colouful language will probably reduce. It always will be there but not as eccessive and not because we feel thats the way it should be. We are no longer shocked by it. This same reasoning I think can be applied to a broad range of changes we see in society. Once a change starts it often is taken to an extreme level before levelling out.
    The Zeitgeist changes from era to era. What kicks it along is the interesting thing.

Share This Page