|
|
| Normal Rooms | | General | 4 users
AntiStaticCleaningWi, melinda_halliwell_tu, Mistress_SinisterLov, littlegothgirlthatco |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 43 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
AloneSoul
Fanatic   Posts: 522 Registered: 6/7/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 2/3/2003 at 02:36 PM |
Has anyone read the April issue of Discover Magazine? If not, turn to page
28-29, you'll find a delightful article dragging electronic entertainment
through the mud, saying in kinder words that it "causes violence in our
society" and all that yolk.
(Oh, by the way, Discovery magazine’s statistics consist of the "deaths per
minute in selected action video games" which includes "Donkey Kong 99",
"Q'Bert 99", "The Smurfs 99", "Mario Bros. 85", Mario Bros: 64. 96"...and
plenty of expert's nay-say.)
Anyone here know of where I can find some sites with solid statistics on
juvenile crime rates? Or any sites with the studies that refute the violent
games and child aggression? I’ve been google’in em both but my searches
have been so far fruitless.
Also, any thoughts on this article? I think you all know how I feel on this
but I was chagrined to see this type of mainstream media muckraking in
Discover Magazine...hell, you’d think they would have some substance to
support that highly opinionated article or atleast a counter view point but
nope...the hysteria and money will flow on. ____________________
 but at least you know, just how much pain there is in living
|
| |
| |
Sticupus
Fanatic  Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
 posted on 2/3/2003 at 10:08 PM |
This is what statisticians and scientists call a false correlation. It's
like me saying the following- The circumcision rate preformed on infants
increased to 80% in the 80's. The crime rate of this age group is also
higher than any other before it. Can I logically say that infant
circumcision causes teenage violence? Yes; if I wanted to stir some shit up
with people about an issue I feel strongly about. But that data doesn't
take into account the other factors in place. Has the children's diet
changed? Are the parents more abusive? Are the kids pushed into crime due
to poor living conditions? What color paint are their rooms? Are they all
eating the same kind of candy?
There are an infinite number of factors that can take place. Thus my
correlation of circumcision and crime is equal to that of violent video
games and crime. Which one is it? One? None? Both? Something else?
Those statistics are false. I know that and I don’t even have to look at
the source of the data or the means of obtaining it to know that. It’s a
false correlation. Bull shit. A flaw of the scientific method created by
hopeful ignorant people wanting certain results and never questioning
whether or not they are just and correct in their findings.
However, the usual problem with the false correlation is that the
correlation usually seems logical. Like killing little bugs in a video game
is similar to killing all of your classmates. You are killing something
right? Right. However, what other factors are present? What if all of those
kids had more sodium in their diet than generations before them? Based on
that logic, all we have to do is limit the amount of sodium kids get and
teen violence and crime will lessen. Does that sound logical? No. The bugs
are like the salt. Another endless factor in an unexplainable human social
phenomena. They will never find out why there is more teen violence. Taking
away their video games won’t help.
Injecting them with opiates and putting them in a constant trance like
state will however. That’s a positive correlation. Drone kids don’t kill.
That’s a better idea than the ole’ DARE program.
Don’t let it burn you. This is what happens when scumbag journalists want
attention instead of doing their job of protecting free speech and passing
along information. There is a special place in hell for these people: for
their stupidity. ____________________
The OBOLISK is Divine.
|
| |
Dolorosa
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 856 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 3/3/2003 at 11:38 AM |
Damn Stic...that was good.
Yeah, statistics are generally bullshit. Unfortunately, I don't know any
good places to look up counter-statistics, my best advice would be to do
what everyone else does...make that shit up.
Consequently...I hope video games makes kids more violent, with a
vengance. If the little fuckers start killing everyone off with Faith and a
purpose, that means less morons all around...I fully hope that Halo gets
injected into those easily malleable minds and sends them off on a fucking
massacre...at least something good would be on TV for once damn it...and no
I'm not serious.
I think we talked about this once before, and came to the roundabout
conclusion that that "study" was bullshit.
You can't ever acurately deduce something based on percentages and
statistics...human beings, by their very fucking natures go against such
things. And we've never, ever neede a reason to kill each other...they just
make simpletons and cowards feel better about themselves, the stupid shits. ____________________
In the valley of the Goats, the Goat Fucker is King
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic  Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 4/3/2003 at 09:32 PM |
DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING
You are neither going to like nor understand it anyway.
Dolorosa: Disreali classified (and Mark Twain clarified) that these things
fall into three taxa: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics". The reason that
this is so is because only a very small number of people have the slightest
clue as to what statistics actually say, and they are therefore extremely
easy to mislead the uneducated majority with. On the other hand, to make a
statement like "You can't ever acurately (sic) deduce something based
(upon) percentages and statistics..." indicates one of two things. Namely,
that you fall into that majority of people who do not understand the
principles of numbers (as Stic just demonstrated), or you do not want any
facts to stand in the way of your beliefs (as Alone just demonstrated). To
wit:
Stic: I am saying this to keep you from embarrassing yourself should you
ever find yourself speaking to somebody who knows anything about science.
There is no such thing as "False correlation". Correlations can only be
strong (usually p= greater than .05) or weak (p= .05 or less), positive
(one variable increases as another increases) or negative (one variable
decreases as another increases) correlations. The example you gave would
be a very weak positive correlation (viz. Two variables both exhibit
positive pull either from coincidence or by the influence of a third,
unidentified variable. There are regression formulae to identify this). In
order for us to understand what statistics are actually saying, we must be
privy to more than just the resultant numbers themselves. Without an idea
of the type of surveyand controls, the standard deviation, the size of the
survey (n), and a few other details, it is impossible to know if the
numbers have any statistical significance.
Now, throw away everything else that I might have said and just bear in
mind that I disagreed with you. I will expect your hissy fits shortly.
~Monolycus.
|
| |
Geist
Member   Posts: 127 Registered: 5/11/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 5/3/2003 at 12:00 AM |
I would have to agree with you on this Mono. Heres a fairly quick lesson in
statistics.
Can something be proved absolute through statistics ? Yes, although through
a very time consuming process involving the testing of far to many
variables as each variable stubied introduces more variables to compare.
Please hold tight with me here and if anyone has any questions please feel
free to raise your hand. I've had a lit bit to drink tonight so this might
not be the easiest thing to read or comprehend but I'll give it a shot.
Statistics for Beginners
Correlation and regression
The word correlation is used in everyday life to denote some form of
association. We might say that we have noticed a correlation between foggy
days and attacks of wheeziness. However, in statistical terms we use
correlation to denote association between two quantitative variables. We
also assume that the association is linear, that one variable increases or
decreases a fixed amount for a unit increase or decrease in the other. The
other technique that is often used in these circumstances is regression,
which involves estimating the best straight line to summarise the
association.
Correlation coefficient
The degree of association is measured by a correlation coefficient, denoted
by r. It is sometimes called Pearson's correlation coefficient after its
originator and is a measure of linear association. If a curved line is
needed to express the relationship, other and more complicated measures of
the correlation must be used.
The correlation coefficient is measured on a scale that varies from + 1
through 0 to - 1. Complete correlation between two variables is expressed
by either + 1 or -1. When one variable increases as the other increases the
correlation is positive; when one decreases as the other increases it is
negative. Complete absence of correlation is represented by 0.
Looking at data: scatter diagrams
When an investigator has collected two series of observations and wishes to
see whether there is a relationship between them, he or she should first
construct a scatter diagram. The vertical scale represents one set of
measurements and the horizontal scale the other. If one set of observations
consists of experimental results and the other consists of a time scale or
observed classification of some kind, it is usual to put the experimental
results on the vertical axis. These represent what is called the "dependent
variable". The "independent variable", such as time or height or some other
observed classification, is measured along the horizontal axis, or
baseline.
The words "independent" and "dependent" could puzzle the beginner because
it is sometimes not clear what is dependent on what. This confusion is a
triumph of common sense over misleading terminology, because often each
variable is dependent on some third variable, which may or may not be
mentioned. It is reasonable, for instance, to think of the height of
children as dependent on age rather than the converse but consider a
positive correlation between mean tar yield and nicotine yield of certain
brands of cigarette.' The nicotine liberated is unlikely to have its origin
in the tar: both vary in parallel with some other factor or factors in the
composition of the cigarettes. The yield of the one does not seem to be
"dependent" on the other in the sense that, on average, the height of a
child depends on his age. In such cases it often does not matter which
scale is put on which axis of the scatter diagram. However, if the
intention is to make inferences about one variable from the other, the
observations from which the inferences are to be made are usually put on
the baseline. As a further example, a plot of monthly deaths from heart
disease against monthly sales of ice cream would show a negative
association. However, it is hardly likely that eating ice cream protects
from heart disease! It is simply that the mortality rate from heart disease
is inversely related - and ice cream consumption positively related - to a
third factor, namely environmental temperature.
|
| |
Sticupus
Fanatic Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 6/3/2003 at 08:33 PM |
| Incorrect Monolycus. We are talking about Psychology, it's a realm that is
filled with speculation and guesses. Flase Correlations exist in
Psychology. Why? itisn't a real science anyway, it's more like ideas or
art. ____________________
The OBOLISK is Divine.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 6/3/2003 at 10:22 PM |
No, Stic, you're wrong. The article in question concerns neurobiology and
was based upon studies from "(s)ix formidable public-health organizations,
including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical
Association" (p.28). Even if the field of psychology were nothing but a
"speculation and guesses" (it is not), the examples you raised to discredit
it had nothing to do with psychology, but rather was an attack on the field
of statistics, in which you made incorrect statements. Further, your
concept of "false correlation" does not exist even in the softest of
sciences because it is based upon an arbitrary selection of whichever data
happen to please you and casually discarding whichever data do not. That
might fly when you are speaking to people who do not know any better, but
that attitude will (very justifiably) get you laughed out of any kind of
peer review. Try again.
~M.
P.S. You are absolutely correct, Geist, (at least it jibes entirely with
what I was taught in Stats 304) although it was a bit more detail than I
would have thought necessary for the debate at hand.
|
| |
Geist
Member Posts: 127 Registered: 5/11/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 10/3/2003 at 07:14 PM |
Bah leave me alone Mono I needa learn to
keep my mouth shut when I'm drinking. But you're right... a lil bit too
much.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 10/3/2003 at 10:15 PM |
Aw, piffle, Geist! Rambling is perfectly acceptable amongst friends! At
least, if it isn't, nobody has tried to cut me off yet. 
~M
|
| |
Dolorosa
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 856 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 11/3/2003 at 11:16 AM |
| Blast...I hate it when someone disagrees with me and is a hell of a lot
more right than I am...>shrug< no worries, I stand corrected...although I
still hate numbers. ____________________
In the valley of the Goats, the Goat Fucker is King
|
| |
AloneSoul
Fanatic Posts: 522 Registered: 6/7/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 11/3/2003 at 11:17 AM |
*flails his arms in the air, voice becomes high pitched and grabs a chair*
The facts which stand in way of my beliefs are something I will not deny if
they are concrete. But many magazines/ news papers print out these articles
which are simply opinionated (like this specific post, heh), they don’t
have any research results printed out along with the article to back up
their claims...honestly, I don’t see how the “kill rate” in a Super Mario
Bros. game will influence any child to and crush his chum’s head with a
giant leap...or cause a child to grow into a abusive or negative parent.
I get into a hissy fit about this because (I see it) as a media hysteria.
You gotta agree that American media does take these things (a sensational
story) over board. DC Sniper Shootings, Columbine, Clinton’s sexual
escapades etc. Electronic entertainment is simply another easy target that
is under great scrutiny at this time.
As for the statics I wanted to look up, that was just to satisfy my need to
build a solid foundation for this argument. I’ve read numerous times in
various articles that studies have been done which refute the claims that
games are a negative influence on society. - I also would like to see the
studies which say that they are a negative influence.
{As for statistical goodness, aye I know that basics/ I can read em and
understand em...but not nearly on the same level as a expert or
professional. I don’t hold a great deposit for statistical vocabulary
either, I admit it...I’m a “noob.” Heh.}
“Correlation coefficient”: Basically it reminds me of a scale, put 1 lb of
substance A on one side and side B will tip.
M, it’s good to hear from you again in a debating nature.
Geist, thanks for that well written statistical info!
I learn a lot for the both of you....I don’t know whether you see that as a
good or bad thing. ____________________
SRC="http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/snes/ff6/images/characters/kefka.gi
f">
size=1> but at least you know, just how much pain there is in living
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 11/3/2003 at 05:38 PM |
Okay, this is going to take awhile. I hate typing longer posts in a forum
because I know that for the twenty to forty minutes it takes me to type it,
people are going to skim it for a few key words and then ignore it. Oh
well, so much for the high road.
Alone, you began the forum by calling an article that you saw in Discover
magazine an example of "mainstream media muckraking" based solely upon the
fact that what the article had to report was not what you wanted to hear.
That sets the tone for any following debate (it is called "poisoning the
well" in debating circles) and constitutes a fallacy non sequiter (if the
magazine were a single person, it would be an ad hominem fallacy... that is
to say, attacking the qualities of the person rather than their argument,
but I am not entirely sure that works the same way when one is speaking
about a conglomerate. At the very least, your objection is a non sequiter
[does not follow] because you failed to provide any evidence to refute your
opponent's position when you stated that they were guilty of "... dragging
electronic entertainment through the mud").
The fact is that Discover magazine is owned and operated as a subsidiary of
the Walt Disney Corporation through Buena Vista Magazines (look on page 7
of the issue in question). Since Disney has a substantial share of
entertainment properties (including electronic games), you can not say that
one of its subsidiaries has a grudge against the video game market. If
there is a bias, it would necessarily have to be on the side of the
entertainment industry. I thought that the article in question was
actually reasonably balanced considering this and the fact that Discover
magazine is to scientific inquiry what Hostess Twinkies are to nutrition.
Be all of that as it may, I talked about understanding the principles of
statistics because you threatened to go off and find a study that better
reflected what you would like to believe. Yes, those studies do exist (as
it says in the article you originally referred to), but there is a big
problem with that. Citing statistical studies without having a statistical
background is less than worthless. One hundred thousand studies that say
that eating plastic is good for you is worth nothing if those studies were
funded by Dow Chemicals. Yes, you can find "studies" that say anything
that you want, but if you do not have any more information than that, it is
not a persuasive argument. That is why it is significant that the Discover
article cited the six studies as coming from the AMA and the AAP. These
organizations exist solely because they are (allegedly) independent of
corporate bias. An AMA study necessarily carries more weight than one
thousand undertaken independently by Phillip Morris.
Unfortunately, even corporate bias (and the entertainment and
pharmaceutical industries own enough "scientists" to make that problem
damned near insurmountable) is not the sole problem in finding legitimate
data to make a point here. If you have a background in research, you will
understand that a random sample (the fastest way to gain data) will not
point to the kind of trend that we are discussing. The only valid way of
establishing a definitive link between this kind of entertainment and
future behaviour is to conduct a longitudinal study (viz. following your
sample and control groups over the course of their lives... a process which
takes a minimum of twenty years to establish meaningful results). Without
that kind of definitive data, any nay-sayer is free to cast doubt on the
results of ANY study, based upon the principle that it is logically
impossible to prove that a thing does not exist ("absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence"). If you decide that no link between violent
media and real life violence exists, then there is no scientific way to
disprove it even in the face of a preponderance of evidence.
Unfortunately, these statistical problems are going to muddle up any
research undertaken by non-researchers as well (as you proposed to do when
you asked about where to find crime statistics). The "purest" crime
statistics are compiled annually by the FBI in Washington, D.C. and are
called the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). As near as I know, they are
available to the public for the asking (they are cited by every two bit
politician who wants to cite an imaginary trend that will get them
elected), but they are, to any halfway educated person who gives the issue
a moment's thought, not worth the paper they are printed on. To begin
with, the "...meaning of much of UCR data hinges on a distinction drawn by
the FBI between 'Index Crimes' and 'Non-Index Crimes'..." (Criminology 3rd
Edition, P. Beirne & J. Messershmidt. Westview Press, CO. 2000) that are
meaningless in real world applications. Further, UCR data is based upon
voluntary submissions from 16,000 state, county and municipal law
enforcement agencies (ibid.), which indicates that crimes are only reported
arbitrarily and are subject to what statisticans call POA numbers
(literally, "Pulled Out of their Asses"). Unfortunately, there is no way
to know how much real crime is going on out there.
So, since we can not "prove" that there is a link between between violence
and video games without a longitudinal study (which will take many, many
years) and we can not "prove" within the confines of formal logic that
there is not, what is there to debate? Well, the evidence so far from the
the most firmly established clinical sources seem to indicate that there is
a link between the two, and it also is firmly in keeping with our current
understanding of psychological principles. (I know that Stic thinks that
the field of psychology is tantamount to landscape painting, but we will
wait until he has published his book debunking Pavlov before we throw
psychology out with the bathwater, okay?) What most games do is to reward
a player with points or a sense of accomplishment or a cool
adreno-endorphin rush for commiting violence while it subdues the right
posterior cingulate portion of the brain (which stores traumatic
experiences and gives us that creepy feeling we associate with something
"bad" happening). Of course, these affects are only temporarily induced by
the game, but classical operant conditioning is based upon the concept of
short, irregular repetitions of an association.
More simply put, it requires far less rationalizing and excuse-making to
believe that there is a link between violence and video games than there is
not to... which, very often, is data enough. I don't need to see a study
that tells me it will hurt if I am bitten by a rhinoceros. I've never been
bitten by a rhinoceros, but I have been bitten by dogs, cats and blind
dates and those have hurt. The principle that being bitten will hurt
should stand up even if the biter is not something that has bitten me
before. I can argue all day that it has not been "proved" that this is the
case, but I have more faith in the theory of biting than in the numbers and
studies. Similarly, if we reward rats every time they press a button and
then they modify their instincts to keep pressing that button, I do not see
how putting a dynamic human brain in what amounts to a Skinner box with a
joystick is substantively different.
I don't expect any of this to be internalized and I've been typing it in
for almost an hour now. There is definitely a clear link between my
feelings of aggression and the length of time it takes me to explain
something that I doubt will make any difference anyway.
~Monolycus.
|
| |
Dolorosa
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 856 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 11/3/2003 at 06:18 PM |
| dear god...I think my eyeballs fell out. To tell you the truth, I'm so much
more in my element when busting dried femurs over the other monkies' heads.
fucking awesome though mono...jeez. ____________________
In the valley of the Goats, the Goat Fucker is King
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 11/3/2003 at 11:00 PM |
Thanks, Dolo. For the record, I'm not all that crazy about numbers
either.
~M.
|
| |
AloneSoul
Fanatic Posts: 522 Registered: 6/7/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 12/3/2003 at 08:23 AM |
Each time I read a article stating how games are a detractor to society get
worried that censorship could arise if say...the public goes into a
hysteria with the next politician who wants to ride the puritan vote using
the “innocent” minds of children as leverage for their political campaign.
- It just seems that so many parents are putting their children in front of
the tv and letting it raise them. Whenever the latest moral crusade (or fad
as I would say) rises who knows what the “televised” public reaction would
be.
(This article: http://pc.ign.com/articles/067/067864p1.html points
that out.
- "Let's take a quick look at what's being said and done in the wake of the
tragedy. In his regular weekly address, President Clinton said, "video
games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct and Doom, the very game played
obsessively by the two young men who ended so many lives in Littleton, make
our children more active participants in simulated violence." The day after
the address, this quote appeared in a story in the Los Angeles Times
titled, 'Clinton Points to Culture's Influence' and was subsequently run in
papers all over the country. The same day, the Portsmouth school district
in New Hampshire enacted a ban on black trench coats and dark clothing. The
Superintendent of the district Suzanne Schrader, was quoted in an AP story
that also ran all over the nation as saying, "'when kids come back from
vacation, they better not even think about wearing Marilyn Manson' or
anything else related to the gothic movement." That’s why I get fussed
‘bout it. Public hysteria goes overboard. )
- Interesting! I admit I have no evidence to refute the argument except for
personal research into the effects of game violence on people and public
knowledge of various things...stats and bullshit, such as juvenile crime
rates in America and Japanese crime rates. (Morte may know about that since
he’s stationed in Japan.(?)) The whole statics bullshit is, I admit, a
temporary opiate of sorts for a troubled mind. Well written thought M! ____________________
SRC="http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/snes/ff6/images/characters/kefka.gi
f">
HREF="http://www.pathetic.org/library.php?i_memberid=2042">
size=1> but at least you know, just how much pain there is in living
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 13/3/2003 at 05:23 PM |
it might be interesting to note that the same things we said about comic
books way back when.
So far as i have been able to find there is no comparison study about the
similarities and differences in behavor patterns in teenagers that play
"violent" sports and those that play "violent" games. I personally am
interested to know if there are differences in sexual and relationship
patterns that take into account the home situation (economic group,
disposable income in teenagers hands, shares a bedroom or not, size of
interactive family group, active grandparents and so forth) and pattern
solving skills (sometimes known as I.Q.). I really dont know what it would
show and I think it would be of more social value than the pavlovian tests
that are being done now, especially since one can illicit similar brain
responses by flashing colors in front of peoples' eyes.
Because we cant even begin to guess at the actual correlation between youth
crime and video games or live sports (see Mono's info about the crime
statistics), we cant say that there is a definate change over time in the
amount of crime commited by youths who play video games. into the "bad"
data pool of crime stats it is important to remember that more things are
counted as a "crime" today than were counted as a crime 10 years ago, 20
years ago, or 50 years ago. if there are more crimes, then there are more
ways to commit a crime so more people commit a crime. Also there is more
reporting of some kinds of crimes (sex crimes for example) and less
reporting of others (like sex between teenagers). so unless we could count
only those crimes that stay crimes over time, with the same penalty, with a
similar group of people (social situation, mental situation, emotional
situation {in that comparing someone that is abused with someone that is
not isnt comparing apples to apples in behavoirs}and economic situation)
then perhaps we could make some guesses about the effects of video games on
crime.
But even if we could do that study, it would be reported in a variety of
ways due to ignorance, bad reporting, sensationalism, and lack of attention
in the "news". It would be reported more accurately in the science
journals, and more accurately still in the direct report from the
researchers.
Statistics as such dont lie, they only report ratios of the data compared.
the data doesnt lie, but it may not tell the whole story. What people make
out of the data and the statistics is where the "lies" come in. After all
they are really just one way to interpert, play with, or report from that
data pool.
hats off guys for being so clear about the real roll of statistics in
reporting on data pools. I survived stats, oodles of social science
classes, and have taught a class on research methodology, ethics, and
reporting in the social sciences. I wish I had had these notes to show to
my class to help them understand where the "errors" enter into a survey or
an experiement.
|
| |
RavensSoul
Member  Posts: 63 Registered: 27/3/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/3/2003 at 12:25 PM |
Being a teenager and having had some violent tendencies myself, I will
honestly tell you that there isn't one thing in particular to blame for why
kids act how they do. There is alot put on us in this day and age and it's
just really hard. A lot is expected out of kids and a lot of us aren't
even given credit for our thoughts and how the actions of the adults in our
lives will affect us. I went through a year and a half of serious
depression because of something that had been going on at my school last
year. My physical environment was affecting my mental health and it had
nothing to do with what I was watching on TV or in the movies, and I don't
play video games, so there was no way that was the problem, and the
situation at school wasn't only affecting me, there were A LOT of extremely
unhappy kids and one boy had even been victimized to the point of he had
made out a hitlist. He was arrested and nothing happened and he was made to
look like a very bad person, but this boy had been my friend for 3 years.
He had comforted me when I was upset, he had been a shoulder to cry on, and
he had been one of the better friends I'd ever known. He wasn't a killer.
He was just backed into a corner and thats what he thought was the only way
out. And to me, that is really sad. I had watched him be harassed by the
vice principal and other adults because he wasn't the smartest or nicest
kid. The thoughts and feelings of the children in the school I used to go
to weren't valued and thats why a lot of us were hurting or wanting to
hurt.
It's like this, I'm only 14 years old. I've thought about suicide, I've
thought about wanting to kill someone I honestly thought I hate. But its
something I would never do. Im too scared to end a persons life, I'm too
scared to end my own life. My parents put that fear in me and I have enough
respect for the people in my life that I wouldn't put them through that. I
know at times it feels like Im alone and that the world could care less if
I was here or not, But I know that there are people who love me and it
would hurt them to see me die or kill.
Some kids aren't lucky enough to have that in their lives and that may be a
reason they kill their classmates then turn the gun on themselves. Some
kids have thought about the idea of murder for so long that their minds are
numb to the fear of committing such an act of violence. Some kids are just
psycologically fucked up and can't help themselves.
Games and TV and Movies and all that fun shit is just something for us to
do. Killing someone in a game doesn't really promote killing someone in
real life. If a person had the notion to do it, they would have eventually
done it with or without doing it first in a video game. Movies and TV
violence my be helpful in stopping kids from killing if you look at it in
the right light. Some of the blood and gore stuff is so realistic, it
exposes a kid to what they're going to see and whats going to happen when
and if they take the gun out and pull the trigger. They see what that
bullet is going to do when it goes through another person. They see that
they're going to have a bloody mess, they're gonna get blood spatter on
them, they're going to see fucking brains or guts blown all over the place
depending on where they shoot. Frankly, the thought of being covered in
someone else brains and guts and blood and shit is enough to turn me off of
the idea of ever even touching a gun.
But, I kinda got off what I really wanted to say. I think adults should
just ask kids why we're so upset. They should ask us why we are so
depressed or why we want to kill, not just jump to the conclusion that its
the types of entertainment that we're exposed to. TV and Games and Movies
are just the tip of the iceberg. The problems are a hell of a lot deeper
and not so hidden, but thats only if you take the time to look below the
surface and into the eyes of a sad child. Kids give a lot of cries for
help, but they're often ignored.
For months my parents wanted to believe the cuts they saw on me were caused
by our cats... I think my mom still believes that.
( for any of you that may be concerned, i dont' cut anymore. Its stupid...
physical pain doesn't stop the emotional pain )  ____________________
In my eyes, to be human is not to be able to live and die, but it is to
feel pain, love, happiness, and all other things that keep our hearts from
freezing over into the bloody ice that distinguishes man from the beasts of
night.
|
| |
PoeticChaos
Occasional Poster   Posts: 23 Registered: 14/12/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/3/2003 at 12:47 PM |
Raven makes a good point, but I disagree with her on one point. I don't
think that parents should ask what's wrong with us, I think that they
should just stay the hell out of our lifes or at least not send us to some
mental ward just because we drew a somewhat morbid and grotesque picture.
The games we play, the stuff we write, the movies and television we watch
all allow us a place to vent.
(personal note to Raven) Your death would cause a chain-reaction of deaths
and I don't think you want the people you surround yourself with to die
either. We would eventually kill the whole world with that chain. *gets
ideas* *shakes away the thoughts* Anyways, we love you, Raven and would
kill ourselves before you or anyone else could so much as hurt you.
~Chaos~ ____________________
|
| |
RavensSoul
Member Posts: 63 Registered: 27/3/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/3/2003 at 12:50 PM |
Awww! Chaos! YOU'RE MUH BUD-DY!
And I know what you meant by the chain reaction of deaths : feels so loved
:
Oh, but I didn't mean parents interferring with whats going on, god knows I
don't tell my parents shit, but I just meant people who randomly notice
that something is wrong. Anyways... yep. ____________________
In my eyes, to be human is not to be able to live and die, but it is to
feel pain, love, happiness, and all other things that keep our hearts
from
freezing over into the bloody ice that distinguishes man from the beasts
of
night.
|
| |
Ironboots
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 893 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/3/2003 at 03:58 PM |
Wow, referring to the statistics of 99 deaths per minute for DK, QBert and
the Smurfs, I am impressed. It would take godlike powers to kill that many
in a minute... I mean, that's one and a half every second!
Or, in QBert, they really stink at playing the game and keep jumping off.
But still... There's respawn time. ____________________
Piggy's got the Conch!
|
| |
|
|
|
