Do violent video games cause violence in real life?

Post Reply New Topic

i'm sure that people can argue that

Your Option 1 is that imaginary A does NOT lead to real A, and that your opposition is an idiot.
Your Option 2 is that imaginary A necessarily leads to real A.

Option 1 is a strong argument, and is easy to hold. Option 2 is its logical inverse, certainly, but it is a weak form of the opposing side. The vast majority of people who disagree with option 1, will agree with an unstated Option 3: There are situations in which imaginary A increases the odds of real B. My post is an example of a defense of Option 3. Your poll will only measure what percent of people will both vote, and agree with you or will agree with an artificially shallow argument. Your metric is internally valid, but is meaningless when applied to the actual issue, because you have artificially prevented most of your opposition from taking part in a meaningful way.

Consider this poll:

1: imbatshitcrazy should be given money, and I will donate $5 to this cause.
2: imbatshitcrazy should not be given money, and he should be beaten repeatedly with a stick.

When people do not agree with #1, they are trapped into agreeing with #2, and that you should be beaten with a stick. Most opponents to #1 will seek #3, "I wish imbatshitcrazy the best and hope he gets rich, but not to the extent that I'm willing to open my wallet". They will likely not vote, or will pick an answer they don't fully agree with. Because of that limitation, the metric is irrelevant.

i didn't mean it to turn out this way. sorry

No worries. I'm not trying to police the world or make you feel bad. You brought up an important issue that got a lot of discussion, possibly in part BECAUSE the poll was slanted.

I'm merely outlining that the the metric itself is slanted to assume your opposition is wrong, so you can't take general agreement to indicate any real victory. Your argument against a causal connection between violent media and violent behavior is certainly valid. But there are people (myself included) who will disagree with you, and are a bit more sensible about the connection than you gave them credit for in the poll.

People cause violence, not videogames. The people with violent tendencies are more likely to play the violent games and have poor impulse control enough to emulate them.

No, violent video games do not cause violence. If anything, video games like N64's GoldenEye, C & C Red Alert, MiG 29, and Age Of Empires gave me something to distract myself from the overwhelming depression after my dad died of lung cancer. That distraction help me to prevent my own suicide. So, no, violent video games serve as a distraction and an outlet rather than a causation of violence, at least for me back in '99 through '02 when my depression was at its worst.

this lol, though i don't use the sniper much except against campers.. even then, an impact hammer sends a stronger message.

Video games do not cause violence. It is the utter lack of disregard for others that causes it. One can argue that video games cause an utter lack of disregard towards others, but it is an ego-syntonic attitude rather than something that hijacks your brain. And yes, this poll is biased.