Reply #233: well, it's at least the second time for something [View All]

[iverglas]

You referred me to post 74, which reads:

74. What makes you think the argument is absurd re video games?
Another ridiculous argument on your part.

... and you seem to think this proves some point of yours.

(And see?? It DOESN'T ask "why I think violent video games don't cause violence, something that they find 'absurd'," as you claimed in your most recent post. Here's a hint: open another window in that browser, and you can see what's on the monitor as you type, instead of making things up. I have about 50 windows open at the moment, myself.)

Second time, at least, for reiterating unsubstantiated allegations and purporting to provide substantiation that is no such thing, I'd say.

YOU, my friend, are the one who made the assertion, in post 59:

59. But it's the same argument...
entertainment (jokes, video games, comic books, etc) desensitize their audience to despicable crimes (rape, murder, etc.) which leads to its more unsavory members going out and committing those crimes.
Now the argument is absurd in the case of video games, and I see no reason why it's any less silly here.

-- and YOU are the one who has entirely failed to substantiate it.

By the way, the argument is considerably more sophisticated than you'd like it to be. If you google "rape myth acceptance scale", as I suggested back in post 106, you'll find a wealth of information about the observed effects of widespread tolerance/denial of the occurrence of rape / minimization of the effects of rape, for instance. The argument isn't that "people will go out and commit rape"; it is also that women will not report assaults, and police will be less likely to charge, and juries will be less likely to convict, and sentences will more likely be low -- and all those things will predictably have an effect on the rate of sexual assault. The whole world really is not as stupid as would be convenient for you.


I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt again - of being genuinely uninformed rather than dishonestly denying knowledge.

I'm claiming that violent video games are, obviously, not a causation of violence. Indeed, there's an inverse correlation.

If "inverse correlation" is the only leg you have to stand on, you're going to get very tired.

Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no way of knowing what youth crime rates would have been over the period in question if there had been no violent video games. Or if Bill Clinton had not been president; from your link:

For example, school crime declined by 29 percent between 1993 and 1997, mirroring the 30 percent decline in overall youth crime during roughly the same period.

or if abortion had been illegal. Or if, or if. Those "if"s represent variables.

What if Bill Clinton had been president, as he was, AND there had been no violent video games?? Let us know when your crystal ball has the answer.