i can differ between games and reality, that's the whole point of a game.
if games are just like mario, i wouldn't play em.
don't get me wrong, in RL i am quite pacifistic, but not in games.
that's the whjole point of gaming. have an alternate reality.
wing commander, system shock, dx. they all would have failed if they didn't have the feature to kill your enemies.
i am FAR beyond the age of mickey mouse, and even when i was a kid, i never really like that mouse, donald always was WAY cooler.
Did you really read the article? If you did, you missed his point completely.
He doesn't want to take away violence completely. He thinks violence is becoming too glorified and it is taking away from the quality of games today.
Take Sniper 2 for example. Sometimes, your killing shots will get a slow-motion mode and an x-ray view of the victim's organs is shown while the bullet travels through them, breaking bones and sending red matter out the exit wound hole. If you take that away, the game is a rather boring shooter with bad physics and a horrible AI. That's the kind of violence he wants to see taken out of games.
well, as said above, i am quite able to differ between reality and games, and i surely will not go around with a pumpgun and blow people's heads off.
i will neiter get into my spacecraft to kill kilrathies or start to lvl up my classless magic skills to kill zombies or whatnot :P
i totaly enjoy games like hitman or space marines or tribes ascend, because they are GAMES. in RL there is only one reason for me to chose violance, someone attacking me or someone else.
all you need is some nice parents who tell you in your beginning time which is which :P
reality is the thing where you get a headache from sun. games are those who give you a headache when you played em long enough! :P
na seriously, it's not about violence in games, it's about education and being raised properly ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Close to my heart and I can sum it up like this. If you dont want to play violent games dont play violent games. A few years ago I got a game I felt was too violent and you know what I did? I returned it got Guitar Hero instead. I havent played a GTA game in years I am kind of just past it. There is no need for me to decide what everyone else gets to play and in the same sense I dont have to play what everyone else plays. Were all grown up here and ths is business if it sells it sells and we truly cant get angry over it.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
So, what is that "does say something"? What does it say?
That crime has gone down during the same time period that video game violence has increased.
Ya, but unless we know if there is a correlation, it is useless information. I thought that you implied that it says something useful; otherwise, I can point out that a certain Adam become older during that period of time and the fact about Adam "says something".
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
So, what is that "does say something"? What does it say?
That crime has gone down during the same time period that video game violence has increased.
Ya, but unless we know if there is a correlation, it is useless information. I thought that you implied that it says something useful; otherwise, I can point out that a certain Adam become older during that period of time and it "says something".
It's cool if you don't enjoy looking at those numbers and thinking about the implications on your own. Comparing an Adam and Eve story to the information I provided for discussion is cheap and petty.
{I think that} a statement of opinion shouldn't be followed by {thats a fact}. For obvious reasons.
There ya go, fixed that up for ya.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
"There is not necessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
No, it doesn't. It is a logical error to draw any kind of conclusion from two unrelated events without proving or providing evidence that the two are linked. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? Even implying a correlation is the same as outright saying it.
The games industry is today's scapegoat for society's problems. It used to be the movie industry. Tomorrow, the control freaks willl find something else to whinge about.
Yup.
And before the movie industry it were cartoons and of course unsavory, youth corrupting music. Such as the Beatles. *shakes fist*
Actual issues with real life violence have more to do with the availability of firearms in some countries and malfunctions in parenting, education and proper counseling to recognize and help young people who might become a problem for themselves and others.
p.s. @ the OP: Sex in games a problem? In which games again? In my opinion 99% of the industry is avoiding having any in their games just to prevent tempting the rabbid Anti Porn lobby. Compared to violence, the amount of sex in games is astonishingly low in fact.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
So, what is that "does say something"? What does it say?
That crime has gone down during the same time period that video game violence has increased.
Ya, but unless we know if there is a correlation, it is useless information. I thought that you implied that it says something useful; otherwise, I can point out that a certain Adam become older during that period of time and it "says something".
It's cool if you don't enjoy looking at those numbers and thinking about the implications on your own. Comparing an Adam and Eve story to the information I provided for discussion is cheap and petty.
The implications of a comparison of two trends which have not been rigorously proven to be correlated is: " We need more information before we can draw any conclusion". Until the correlation is proved, the information is as useless for us as knowing that someone became older during the same period of time.
You're on a video game site and don't know who warren spector is?
LOL. Seriously.
That was pretty much my first thought.
"This guy's kidding, right?"
You know, there are plenty of us who have played games since long before some of you were born. This doesn't mean we know everything about the persons behind them. Having been a member of this site for several years, and a regular visitor even longer, I can't remember to ever have seen his name appearing here. This dude may be the god of games for you, but he's an unknown nobody for me.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
"There is not necessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
No, it doesn't. It is a logical error to draw any kind of conclusion from two unrelated events without proving or providing evidence that the two are linked. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? Even implying a correlation is the same as outright saying it.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Here, read these ( argument by innuendo and fallacy of false cause )and you will understand why your argument holds no merit. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I think it is best for you to improve yourself by reading those links.
Q: Isn't that the consequence of larger and larger budgets, and wanting to avoid risk, and let's just make the last thing that was successful only graphically more intense?
Warren Spector: That's always been true
^^ In context, yes, he's asking abut the violence. However, violence isn't the only thing this questin points out.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
So, what is that "does say something"? What does it say?
That crime has gone down during the same time period that video game violence has increased.
Ya, but unless we know if there is a correlation, it is useless information. I thought that you implied that it says something useful; otherwise, I can point out that a certain Adam become older during that period of time and it "says something".
It's cool if you don't enjoy looking at those numbers and thinking about the implications on your own. Comparing an Adam and Eve story to the information I provided for discussion is cheap and petty.
The implications of a comparison of two trends which have not been rigorously proven to be correlated is: " We need more information before we can draw any conclusion". Until the correlation is proved, the information is as useless for us as knowing that someone became older during the same period of time.
I agree, there is no reason to draw any hard conclusions from it.
I'd also say that the information is not useless. Actually, the information could potentially lead to a hypothesis that could lead to a study that might find a correlation or might debunk the hypothesis. It doesn't matter to me if you personally deem it completely useless. It is interesting to know to me and likely others as well.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
"There is not necessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
No, it doesn't. It is a logical error to draw any kind of conclusion from two unrelated events without proving or providing evidence that the two are linked. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? Even implying a correlation is the same as outright saying it.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Yet I will rechant: it is useless information until a correlation is proved. One problem is that less educated people may mistakingly assume that the information, you gave, is actually useful.
In the last decade (since 2000) the homicide rate declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s.
Based on data from 1980 and 2008, males represented 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rate for males (11.6 per 100,000) was 3 times higher than the rate for females (3.4 per 100,000). The offending rate for males (15.1 per 100,000) was almost 9 times higher than the rate for females (1.7 per 100,000).
The average age of both offenders and victims increased slightly in recent years, yet remained lower than they were prior to the late 1980s.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
^_^
Always nice to see someone drag facts into a discussion.
The cause is most likely the ability to act out violent tendencies in a "safe" environment rather than abortion being legalized.
Quite simply, how do you prove the latter? The first, being games, can easily be tested with a large enough study. Abortion being the cause of the drop in crime over the past 15 or 25 years is like me saying it's because guns are becoming safer because they're being represented more accurately in videogames. I have no basis whatsoever, and you can't actually prove or disprove my statement with a properly run study.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity: Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
It looks to me like since games became violent, violent crime rates have decreased overall. Not only that, but all crime rates have been going down for almost 15 years. If video games ARE making us more violent, then some other unkown is helping to pacify the violence.
This is a fallacy. Drawing a conclusion on two unrelated events is just a way to ignore reality. It's like saying the potatoes in Idaho grew, so my corn in Indiana will grow too. Both events may happen, but one does not necessarily affect the other. A very thorough study would need to be conducted in order to prove your theory.
I enjoy violent games. However, I do think some games take it too far. When it becomes a contest of which game can be the most violent, it gets a little disturbing. Violence has its place in video games, and it should not go far beyond what it takes to make a good story.
If I were to interpret what I wrote as you did, it is a fallacy.
But I want to be clear that I did not say that violent games caused a drop or increase in violence. All I said was that violence has been going down overall during the same time that violence in video games has increased. I even made it a point in my post (a part you conveniently left out) to mention, "There is not neccessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
So, what is that "does say something"? What does it say?
That crime has gone down during the same time period that video game violence has increased.
Ya, but unless we know if there is a correlation, it is useless information. I thought that you implied that it says something useful; otherwise, I can point out that a certain Adam become older during that period of time and it "says something".
It's cool if you don't enjoy looking at those numbers and thinking about the implications on your own. Comparing an Adam and Eve story to the information I provided for discussion is cheap and petty.
The implications of a comparison of two trends which have not been rigorously proven to be correlated is: " We need more information before we can draw any conclusion". Until the correlation is proved, the information is as useless for us as knowing that someone became older during the same period of time.
I agree, there is no reason to draw any hard conclusions from it.
I'd also say that the information is not useless. Actually, the information could potentially lead to a hypothesis that could lead to a study that might find a correlation or might debunk the hypothesis. It doesn't matter to me if you personally deem it completely useless. It is interesting to know to me and likely others as well.
I would be surprised if anyone reading that post has the means and the capability to actually conduct a formal scientific investigation based on that information.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Here, read these ( argument by innuendo and fallacy of false cause )and you will understand why your argument holds no merit. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I think it is best for you to improve yourself by reading those links.
Argument by innuendo can be thrown out the door because I was explicit in saying there was no correlation.
Fallacy of false clause can be thrown out the window since I never correlated the two.
You are now telling me that I was arguing that the two have a correlation when I specifically said there was none in my original post. Comprehend what you read before you attack.
I would be surprised if anyone reading that post has the means and the capability to actually conduct a formal scientific investigation based on that information.
Well, we can always fall back on appeal to authority. Oh wait.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I would be surprised if anyone reading that post has the means and the capability to actually conduct a formal scientific investigation based on that information.
The person that uses this information doesn't have to be reading these forums. The information itself can be useful. Claiming the information is useless is just poppycock.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Here, read these ( argument by innuendo and fallacy of false cause )and you will understand why your argument holds no merit. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I think it is best for you to improve yourself by reading those links.
Argument by innuendo can be thrown out the door because I was explicit in saying there was no correlation.
Fallacy of false clause can be thrown out the window since I never correlated the two.
You are now telling me that I was arguing that the two have a correlation when I specifically said there was none in my original post. Comprehend what you read before you attack.
Argument by innuendo still applies, even if you directly say there is no correlation. Some people will ignore your statement of no correlation and remember the innuendo. That is why your form of argument should not be used. If you attempted to use similar arguments in a courtroom as a lawyer, you would be humiliated into never being able to practice law again.
Fallacy of false cause still applies when the correlation is implied by innuendo.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Here, read these ( argument by innuendo and fallacy of false cause )and you will understand why your argument holds no merit. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I think it is best for you to improve yourself by reading those links.
Argument by innuendo can be thrown out the door because I was explicit in saying there was no correlation.
Fallacy of false clause can be thrown out the window since I never correlated the two.
You are now telling me that I was arguing that the two have a correlation when I specifically said there was none in my original post. Comprehend what you read before you attack.
Argument by innuendo still applies, even if you directly say there is no correlation. Some people will ignore your statement of no correlation and remember the innuendo. That is why your form of argument should not be used. If you attempted to use similar arguments in a courtroom as a lawyer, you would be humiliated into never being able to practice law again.
Fallacy of false cause still applies when the correlation is implied by innuendo.
False. Sorry bro, you don't actualy know what you are talking about.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Here, read these ( argument by innuendo and fallacy of false cause )and you will understand why your argument holds no merit. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I think it is best for you to improve yourself by reading those links.
Argument by innuendo can be thrown out the door because I was explicit in saying there was no correlation.
Fallacy of false clause can be thrown out the window since I never correlated the two.
You are now telling me that I was arguing that the two have a correlation when I specifically said there was none in my original post. Comprehend what you read before you attack.
We don't know if there is a correlation. We can't dismiss that there is a correlation without further relevant scientific studies. Saying "there is no correlation" would be a bad statement to do without actually reading/doing the scientific studies.
I would have to withdraw my old comment regarding that information being as useless as knowing some random person aging. While I see no reason for why there would ever be a correlation between the aging of a random person and the crime rate, there may be one between increased violence in video games and crime rate, which is analogous to "No need to try get information; makes no sense if there would be a correlation" versus "We need more information".
Comments
Did you really read the article? If you did, you missed his point completely.
He doesn't want to take away violence completely. He thinks violence is becoming too glorified and it is taking away from the quality of games today.
Take Sniper 2 for example. Sometimes, your killing shots will get a slow-motion mode and an x-ray view of the victim's organs is shown while the bullet travels through them, breaking bones and sending red matter out the exit wound hole. If you take that away, the game is a rather boring shooter with bad physics and a horrible AI. That's the kind of violence he wants to see taken out of games.
well, as said above, i am quite able to differ between reality and games, and i surely will not go around with a pumpgun and blow people's heads off.
i will neiter get into my spacecraft to kill kilrathies or start to lvl up my classless magic skills to kill zombies or whatnot :P
i totaly enjoy games like hitman or space marines or tribes ascend, because they are GAMES. in RL there is only one reason for me to chose violance, someone attacking me or someone else.
all you need is some nice parents who tell you in your beginning time which is which :P
reality is the thing where you get a headache from sun. games are those who give you a headache when you played em long enough! :P
na seriously, it's not about violence in games, it's about education and being raised properly ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Close to my heart and I can sum it up like this. If you dont want to play violent games dont play violent games. A few years ago I got a game I felt was too violent and you know what I did? I returned it got Guitar Hero instead. I havent played a GTA game in years I am kind of just past it. There is no need for me to decide what everyone else gets to play and in the same sense I dont have to play what everyone else plays. Were all grown up here and ths is business if it sells it sells and we truly cant get angry over it.
Ya, but unless we know if there is a correlation, it is useless information. I thought that you implied that it says something useful; otherwise, I can point out that a certain Adam become older during that period of time and the fact about Adam "says something".
It's cool if you don't enjoy looking at those numbers and thinking about the implications on your own. Comparing an Adam and Eve story to the information I provided for discussion is cheap and petty.
There ya go, fixed that up for ya.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
"There is not necessarily a correlation, but it does say something."
No, it doesn't. It is a logical error to draw any kind of conclusion from two unrelated events without proving or providing evidence that the two are linked. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? Even implying a correlation is the same as outright saying it.
Agreed
Agreed
The implications of a comparison of two trends which have not been rigorously proven to be correlated is: " We need more information before we can draw any conclusion". Until the correlation is proved, the information is as useless for us as knowing that someone became older during the same period of time.
You know, there are plenty of us who have played games since long before some of you were born. This doesn't mean we know everything about the persons behind them. Having been a member of this site for several years, and a regular visitor even longer, I can't remember to ever have seen his name appearing here. This dude may be the god of games for you, but he's an unknown nobody for me.
You guys are aggressive today. Yes, I understand waht a fallacy is. I thought I made it clear to you in that post, but apparently you have an issue with reading comprehension.
It does say something. And I will say it again.
As video games have gotten more violent, violent crime rates have gone down.
This does not necessarily mean that because people play video games that the crime rates went down. This does not mean whatever you are interpreting it to mean because you are incapable of comprehension. It means what it says.
Here, read these ( argument by innuendo and fallacy of false cause )and you will understand why your argument holds no merit. I'm not trying to personally attack you. I think it is best for you to improve yourself by reading those links.
Q: Isn't that the consequence of larger and larger budgets, and wanting to avoid risk, and let's just make the last thing that was successful only graphically more intense?
Warren Spector: That's always been true
^^ In context, yes, he's asking abut the violence. However, violence isn't the only thing this questin points out.
I agree, there is no reason to draw any hard conclusions from it.
I'd also say that the information is not useless. Actually, the information could potentially lead to a hypothesis that could lead to a study that might find a correlation or might debunk the hypothesis. It doesn't matter to me if you personally deem it completely useless. It is interesting to know to me and likely others as well.
Yet I will rechant: it is useless information until a correlation is proved. One problem is that less educated people may mistakingly assume that the information, you gave, is actually useful.
The cause is most likely the ability to act out violent tendencies in a "safe" environment rather than abortion being legalized.
Quite simply, how do you prove the latter? The first, being games, can easily be tested with a large enough study. Abortion being the cause of the drop in crime over the past 15 or 25 years is like me saying it's because guns are becoming safer because they're being represented more accurately in videogames. I have no basis whatsoever, and you can't actually prove or disprove my statement with a properly run study.
The Theory of Conservative Conservation of Ignorant Stupidity:
Having a different opinion must mean you're a troll.
I would be surprised if anyone reading that post has the means and the capability to actually conduct a formal scientific investigation based on that information.
Argument by innuendo can be thrown out the door because I was explicit in saying there was no correlation.
Fallacy of false clause can be thrown out the window since I never correlated the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You are now telling me that I was arguing that the two have a correlation when I specifically said there was none in my original post. Comprehend what you read before you attack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9q8oxkhnvI&list=UUgc4xqIMDoiP4KOTFS21TJA&index=3&feature=plcp
Well, we can always fall back on appeal to authority. Oh wait.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
The person that uses this information doesn't have to be reading these forums. The information itself can be useful. Claiming the information is useless is just poppycock.
Argument by innuendo still applies, even if you directly say there is no correlation. Some people will ignore your statement of no correlation and remember the innuendo. That is why your form of argument should not be used. If you attempted to use similar arguments in a courtroom as a lawyer, you would be humiliated into never being able to practice law again.
Fallacy of false cause still applies when the correlation is implied by innuendo.
False. Sorry bro, you don't actualy know what you are talking about.
lol, lovely :P
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
We don't know if there is a correlation. We can't dismiss that there is a correlation without further relevant scientific studies. Saying "there is no correlation" would be a bad statement to do without actually reading/doing the scientific studies.
I would have to withdraw my old comment regarding that information being as useless as knowing some random person aging. While I see no reason for why there would ever be a correlation between the aging of a random person and the crime rate, there may be one between increased violence in video games and crime rate, which is analogous to "No need to try get information; makes no sense if there would be a correlation" versus "We need more information".