So these idiots want a "dialogue" about the "effects" of violent games on kids (to them "effects" are making kids directly want to shoot up a school, nothing less... They want that result, that's why the mentioned the link as being "almost as great" as the link from smoking cigarrates to cancer. A bullshit excuse everyone uses). Lets begin the debunking of this nonsense:
"Research repeatedly demonstrates that, for children, exposure to violent video games, movies and television programs is a risk factor for becoming desensitized to violence, lack of sympathy for victims and aggressive behavior. Proponents for allowing purveyors of violent media unfettered access to children dismiss the research because it is correlational and not causal."
I went through such research in another post on wordpress and many of the studies are so flawed that it becomes doubtful that they were done for any other purpose to fraudulently find a link between violent games and aggression so the hack psychologists could use them to claim "violent games cause kids to become violent", which they repeatedly did, misinterpreting the studies. I saw evidence that the study creators purposely hid certain facts from the public, like the fact that they use Electroshock therapy to increase aggression in the violent game playing kids, only to find that the PDF that proved this "disappeared" off the internet a few days after I exposed their nonsense. Brainscan studies done by certain groups were all funded by one group, the "center" for successful parenting" who's goal is to get the medical community, the government and others "change culture" to get rid of violence in entertainment, aka ban violent games and worse, with many of these studies which are all quite fraudulent. Now the stakes are higher because morons like Nader and Boykin are saying indirectly that they lead to child molestation, or urges of paedophilia, to cause a moral panic. With such studies linking one thing (violent games) to another (aggression) and dozens of groups saying that it proves something completely different (violent games make kids violent), and then the bombshell that these studies are fraudulent and were funded by groups who want to get rid of all violence in entertainment, It's hard to even say this claim from the article is even true, it's just rhetoric designed to "change" culture. The discussion will be about banning violent games, it will come up, and so will paedophilia and child molestation as the next "crime" associated with games and gamers. We gamers are already lowlifes, morons, "gamer shitheads" , people who "should have been aborted", druggies and even school shooters in the minds of the wackjob anti-gamers out there, what's to stop them from adding child molestation, rape, and worse to the "effects" of violent games we "exhibit".
"But public health policy is often based on correlation between behavior and harm, and the correlation between media violence and aggression is almost as strong as the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer — and stronger than other acknowledged public health threats such as the links between not using a condom and sexually transmitted H.I.V., and early exposure to lead and lower I.Q. scores."
The claim that the "correlation" between violent games and harm (notice they said "harm" like in violence here, not aggression (like becoming angry here). is as strong as the link between smoking and cancer, is complete nonsense not even proven by a single study, it's something anti-gamers like this writer have said over and over again in articles attacking games, but not once has any one else even said it's true. The proof that the studies are all fraudulent and funded by people who want to "change" culture to get rid of violent entertainment, makes them all flawed and not trustworthy in my mind. Any negative bias in the study makes it flawed. Bias = BAD.
"Regardless of the role violent media played or didn’t play in the tragic Newtown shootings, children are harmed by frequent exposure to movies, video games, music and TV programs that glorify violence. We shouldn’t let the National Rifle Association’s smoke and mirrors, or the urgent need for gun control and effective, readily available mental health services, distract from the problem of media violence."
A little contradictory. Isn't it. this group CCFC is clearly using the tragedy to push their agenda of "stopping" media violence, and this paragraph proves it. If the the Newtown Shooting did NOT have any contributing factors from violent games, there is no way that this witch hunt over the violence in games being "examined" by more studies is even needed. But according to them they are still not sure that games caused Newtown. But do they care?
"We need to stop allowing children to be targets for marketing violent media,"
"Violent Media" targets kids? A peice on my other blog debunking 5 big anti-violent games myths completely debunks this claim, which is claim 4 in the peice. Quoting my explaination of how this is a myth:
"This myth is less drastic than the first one, but is still constantly spread around. The truth is this one has been used in many different ways, all claiming violent games are marketed to kids for different reasons. There isn’t one common reason why this is true… But My article on this (here) basically says that the ESRB ratings are often misconstrued as GOVT enforced by people who do the same thing with MPAA ratings.. They are both voluntary ratings and if a store doesn’t enforce them they don’t get in Legal trouble, unlike what the common belief is. So when you get a biased study like the PTC ‘secret shopper survey’ that says stores sell M rated games to kids 80% of the time, you get people thinking that the industry is marketing games to kids.
The truth is that a recent FTC study says ESRB ratings are even better than MPAA ratings and enforcement in stores… but that doesn’t really disprove the myth…. What does, however is the target demographic of the industry is 18-35 year olds, according to this page. I have heard this on many articles in gaming sites, so I trust it…. If it were 5-9 year olds like all the anti-gamers keep saying then I wouldn’t even try to debunk this… But I have never heard any kind of evidence to support the biased claim that violent games are marketed to kids that isn’t something ridiculous like “violent game ads in our subway”, or “kids in a game store that sells violent games that could be seen by a kid”, or recently someone on a forum said this great claim “Look at all the Lego games, proof violent games are marketed to kids” after saying that since there were violent game ads ‘everywhere’ the claim must be true. Basically it’s a lie."
Complete idiocy and fearmongering and fake evidence/media lie spreading won't help to fix the issues that caused Newtown. In fact no one has even done any actual medical testing to see what issues Adam Lanza even had (mental illnesses ,etc). It's all scapegoating and nonsense spreading.... It's sick and it needs to stop. The country does NOT need to have an Open Discussion on how violent games "Corrupt" kids by making them violent or want to rape babies. We DONT need more scapegoating!
