Your tax dollars @ work
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Your tax dollars @ work A slight hijack, but some on topic trivia. Several years back, Kevin Stokes was hired to write a slightly customized version of the Windows version of the Pie in the Sky Game Creation System for the CDC. The CDC used it to make some games that could be used in rehabilitating people who had suffered injuries that left them with impaired hand-eye coordination and various motor skills related injuries.
Don't worry FlameDuck, bird flu is almost as much hype as violent video games. "2 people dead of bird flu"... Yeah, and 100 dead of normal flu, gosh! And 10,000 dead of heart attacks, but I am not too worried about the McDonalds down the street either.
But I agree with your basic point. Like always people abuse government resources to further their own ends.
In this case, Clinton and Lieberman want to ban violent video games (or at least have video games strictly regulated by the government). To get around the first amendment, they want the CDC to determine that video games cause some sort of unhealthy behavior - Therefore when they go after video games, they say it is a "public health" issue and not a "free speech" issue.
But I agree with your basic point. Like always people abuse government resources to further their own ends.
In this case, Clinton and Lieberman want to ban violent video games (or at least have video games strictly regulated by the government). To get around the first amendment, they want the CDC to determine that video games cause some sort of unhealthy behavior - Therefore when they go after video games, they say it is a "public health" issue and not a "free speech" issue.
yup, not wanting to derail, but I think we've got more to worry about from McDonalds and Marlboro than Bird Flu for sure. But the thing is, people are more scared about stuff they can't control, such as bird flu or robberies, than stuff they can, like eating themselves to death, or smoking. Dumb isn't it?
people are more scared about stuff they can't control, such as bird flu or robberies, than stuff they can, like eating themselves to death, or smoking. Dumb isn't it?
I think we've done a lot better job at controlling the bird flu than how much food we cram down our throats.
I think we've done a lot better job at controlling the bird flu than how much food we cram down our throats.
Thats because it isn't illegal to kill "suspect" birds , but it is illegal to kill fat people who gorge themselves on food and put a drain on our economy because of the health problems they incur because of an unhealthy diet and can't afford to pay for their medical treatments. >And 10,000 dead of heart attacks, but I am not too worried
>about the McDonalds down the street either.
You should be! They're evil I tell you ... EVIL!
Andy
>about the McDonalds down the street either.
You should be! They're evil I tell you ... EVIL!
Andy
> but it is illegal to kill fat people who gorge themselves on food
Being overweight, the last politically acceptable thing to be prejudiced about.
Being overweight, the last politically acceptable thing to be prejudiced about.
Being overweight, the last politically acceptable thing to be prejudiced about.
And for good reason, overweight people are gross. :S
I don't mean 5-15lbs over, I mean morbidly obese.
Do you think SARS gets jealous of all the attention bird flu is getting? I mean we were all supposed to have died of SARS by now. Whatever happened to SARS?
>Whatever happened to SARS?
It got bored and went to bug someone else.
It got bored and went to bug someone else.
Don't worry FlameDuck, bird flu is almost as much hype as violent video games.
Og I know, and to a certain extent, that's what I'm affraid of.What I mind isn't really that these moronic democrats want to find out whether playing violent video games is 'dangerous', or even that they're wasting the US tax payers money doing it (I don't pay taxes in the US), but is the CDC really equiped and qualified to deal with the issue?
Define hypocrisy: Spending millions of dollars making a violent video game for the US Army to use as a recruitment tool, then spending more millions of dollars trying to ban other violent games. I wish they'd just make up their @#!*ing minds.
While you're dying of bird flu, the CDC will be playing Video Games
To be fair I think more people have died as a result of video games than as a result of bird flu. The way i see it, people who kill others based on video games, are unstable people to begin with. If it wasn't video games they were playing, it would be summit else.
The way i see it, people who kill others based on video games, are unstable people to begin with. If it wasn't video games they were playing, it would be summit else.
And don't forget the MMO-ers that give up eating and sleeping to play WOW for 84 hours straight. There is definitely scope for research into the effects of video games on people. Not sure if the CDC should be doing it though. >The way i see it, people who kill others based on video
>games, are unstable people to begin with. If it wasn't
>video games they were playing, it would be summit else.
That's like saying, only unstable people can be brainwashed. Gaming uses the simplest of all brainwashing techniques... Reward and punishment. If you spend months playing a game where certain behavior is rewarded and other behavior is punished, then your mind will adapt to that situation. If the game universe/world becomes your frame of reference, then it's really not difficult to understand why some people go crazy. Add to that the general desensitisation of people, through media, education and TV, and you have a psychopath factory disguised as society.
Andy
>games, are unstable people to begin with. If it wasn't
>video games they were playing, it would be summit else.
That's like saying, only unstable people can be brainwashed. Gaming uses the simplest of all brainwashing techniques... Reward and punishment. If you spend months playing a game where certain behavior is rewarded and other behavior is punished, then your mind will adapt to that situation. If the game universe/world becomes your frame of reference, then it's really not difficult to understand why some people go crazy. Add to that the general desensitisation of people, through media, education and TV, and you have a psychopath factory disguised as society.
Andy
<i>That's like saying, only unstable people can be brainwashed. Gaming uses the simplest of all brainwashing techniques... Reward and punishment. If you spend months playing a game where certain behavior is rewarded and other behavior is punished, then your mind will adapt to that situation. If the game universe/world becomes your frame of reference, then it's really not difficult to understand why some people go crazy. Add to that the general desensitisation of people, through media, education and TV, and you have a psychopath factory disguised as society.</i>
The flaw in your logic is you are assuming video game violence is real life violence. The two are completly different forms of behavior, so rewarding video game violence does not reward real life violence. Video game violence is a fictional, and totally abstracted. Firing a gun in a video game is NOTHING like firing a gun in real life. Jumping in Halo is nothing like jumping in real life. The two are completly unrelated behavior.
It is like saying that Chess encourages people to want to kill members of the royal family.
The flaw in your logic is you are assuming video game violence is real life violence. The two are completly different forms of behavior, so rewarding video game violence does not reward real life violence. Video game violence is a fictional, and totally abstracted. Firing a gun in a video game is NOTHING like firing a gun in real life. Jumping in Halo is nothing like jumping in real life. The two are completly unrelated behavior.
It is like saying that Chess encourages people to want to kill members of the royal family.
>The flaw in your logic
There's no flaw in my logic!
>is you are assuming video game
>violence is real life violence.
When your brain has been conditioned to act in a certain way given a certain set of circumstances, then even very different circumstances with the same fundamental issues, will be considered similar by the brain.
>The two are completly different forms of behavior, so
>rewarding video game violence does not reward real life
>violence.
But the brain doesn't see it that way.
>Video game violence is a fictional, and totally
>abstracted.
The brain doesn't really distinguish between real and 'game'. It has only one mode of operation.
>Firing a gun in a video game is NOTHING like firing a gun
>in real life. Jumping in Halo is nothing like jumping in
>real life. The two are completly unrelated behavior.
But having fired the gun and felt the satisfaction of being rewarded with points or getting to 'live' for a few more moments, the brain doesn't see the difference between a 'high' induced by a computergame or a high induced by a real event.
>It is like saying that Chess encourages people to want to
>kill members of the royal family.
A good one! Except, capturing an opponents piece doesn't require that you live out the actual 'battle' and possibly be defeated. So even though it's a funny quote, it isn't really relevant at all.
Andy
There's no flaw in my logic!
>is you are assuming video game
>violence is real life violence.
When your brain has been conditioned to act in a certain way given a certain set of circumstances, then even very different circumstances with the same fundamental issues, will be considered similar by the brain.
>The two are completly different forms of behavior, so
>rewarding video game violence does not reward real life
>violence.
But the brain doesn't see it that way.
>Video game violence is a fictional, and totally
>abstracted.
The brain doesn't really distinguish between real and 'game'. It has only one mode of operation.
>Firing a gun in a video game is NOTHING like firing a gun
>in real life. Jumping in Halo is nothing like jumping in
>real life. The two are completly unrelated behavior.
But having fired the gun and felt the satisfaction of being rewarded with points or getting to 'live' for a few more moments, the brain doesn't see the difference between a 'high' induced by a computergame or a high induced by a real event.
>It is like saying that Chess encourages people to want to
>kill members of the royal family.
A good one! Except, capturing an opponents piece doesn't require that you live out the actual 'battle' and possibly be defeated. So even though it's a funny quote, it isn't really relevant at all.
Andy
The flaw in your logic is you are assuming video game violence is real life violence. The two are completly different forms of behavior, so rewarding video game violence does not reward real life violence. Video game violence is a fictional, and totally abstracted. Firing a gun in a video game is NOTHING like firing a gun in real life. Jumping in Halo is nothing like jumping in real life. The two are completly unrelated behavior.
It is like saying that Chess encourages people to want to kill members of the royal family.
Actually a video game can be used to brainwash somebody in minutes. Check it out. http://www.alldumb.com/item/11984/It is like saying that Chess encourages people to want to kill members of the royal family.
With a little more work Derren Brown can even make people rob a bank for him.
My disassembling of Andy's post left me with this:
Care to elaborate on your conclusion and premises, Andy? I'm afraid you're being rather vague.
IF you spend months playing a game where certain behavior is rewarded and other behavior is punished
THEN your mind will adapt to that situation.
p1 Someone spends month playing games > your mind will adapt to the situation
IF the game universe/world becomes your frame of reference
THEN it's really not difficult to understand why some people go crazy
p2 Someone's frame of reference is the game world > It's not difficult to understand why people go crazy
Add to that the general desensitisation of people, through media, education and TV, and you have a psychopath factory disguised as society.
cF ?
THEN your mind will adapt to that situation.
p1 Someone spends month playing games > your mind will adapt to the situation
IF the game universe/world becomes your frame of reference
THEN it's really not difficult to understand why some people go crazy
p2 Someone's frame of reference is the game world > It's not difficult to understand why people go crazy
Add to that the general desensitisation of people, through media, education and TV, and you have a psychopath factory disguised as society.
cF ?
Care to elaborate on your conclusion and premises, Andy? I'm afraid you're being rather vague.
DaveW:
Before I say anything, I just want to make sure, you ARE joking, right?
Before I say anything, I just want to make sure, you ARE joking, right?
> The brain doesn't really distinguish between real and 'game'. It has only one mode of operation.
Strange, I LOVE (I mean LOVE) first person shooter games, my kids love them too. All of us have figured out (including the 7 and 9 year old) that what is OK on the computer is NOT OK in real life.
Strange, I LOVE (I mean LOVE) first person shooter games, my kids love them too. All of us have figured out (including the 7 and 9 year old) that what is OK on the computer is NOT OK in real life.
>Care to elaborate on your conclusion and premises, Andy?
>I'm afraid you're being rather vague.
I am not saying that everyone will end up a murdering psychopath after playing a certain amount of videogames.
I believe there is a predisposition, either based on heritage or based on upbringing. This makes you more receptive to brainwashing. The game serves as a 'training' environment and the brain cannot get out of 'gaming mode' again. Either that or the player becomes addicted to the game, either chemically or psychologically, and needs to get his fix.
I don't have magical solution, but I base my conclusions on the psychology of mindcontrol. I've been studying this subject for a while, both in psychology class(I did some assignments on criminal psychology) and in my spare time.
Almost everyone is receptive to suggestion and mindcontrol, but to varying degrees.
>Strange, I LOVE (I mean LOVE) first person shooter games,
>my kids love them too. All of us have figured out
>(including the 7 and 9 year old) that what is OK on the
>computer is NOT OK in real life.
Which is because you and your children still have a 'real world' frame of reference. You are either not predisposed to become a psychopathic copkiller, or you simply haven't played the game enough.
Andy
>I'm afraid you're being rather vague.
I am not saying that everyone will end up a murdering psychopath after playing a certain amount of videogames.
I believe there is a predisposition, either based on heritage or based on upbringing. This makes you more receptive to brainwashing. The game serves as a 'training' environment and the brain cannot get out of 'gaming mode' again. Either that or the player becomes addicted to the game, either chemically or psychologically, and needs to get his fix.
I don't have magical solution, but I base my conclusions on the psychology of mindcontrol. I've been studying this subject for a while, both in psychology class(I did some assignments on criminal psychology) and in my spare time.
Almost everyone is receptive to suggestion and mindcontrol, but to varying degrees.
>Strange, I LOVE (I mean LOVE) first person shooter games,
>my kids love them too. All of us have figured out
>(including the 7 and 9 year old) that what is OK on the
>computer is NOT OK in real life.
Which is because you and your children still have a 'real world' frame of reference. You are either not predisposed to become a psychopathic copkiller, or you simply haven't played the game enough.
Andy
So, Andy, what is there to support your argument besides you stating your beliefs?
So, Andy, what is there to support your argument besides you stating your beliefs?
Nothing. You see Andy, like Flameduck, likes to pass off everything he knows as fact. The difference between FlameDuck and Andy is that Andy uses the term 'My Logic is not flawed" and FlameDuck uses "You're wrong/I'm right".
At least 200,000,000 people were killed by authoritarian governments in the 20th century. Even assuming that video games cause violence (which there is no reason to believe is the case), it is really worth implementing police state tactics to control video games?
Clearly, if we can say there is any connection between video games and teen violence, we can say there is a 100% undeniable connection between censorship and mass-murder. The danger of a police state is so extreme, that it dwarfs any concern over video games by comparison.
I would rather take my chances with video game playing teenagers, than with despotism... Totalitarianism is fashionable these days, but that doesn't make it safe or reasonable.
Clearly, if we can say there is any connection between video games and teen violence, we can say there is a 100% undeniable connection between censorship and mass-murder. The danger of a police state is so extreme, that it dwarfs any concern over video games by comparison.
I would rather take my chances with video game playing teenagers, than with despotism... Totalitarianism is fashionable these days, but that doesn't make it safe or reasonable.
You see Andy, like Flameduck, likes to pass off everything he knows as fact
So do I. We should start a club!
>Nothing. You see Andy, like Flameduck, likes to pass off
>everything he knows as fact.
Pot...Kettle...Black?! You can't argue the point, so you attack me instead. Well aren't you clever!
Besides I clearly used terms such as 'I believe' etc. It's hardly my fault if you don't understand what that means.
>The difference between
>FlameDuck and Andy is that Andy uses the term 'My Logic is
>not flawed" and FlameDuck uses "You're wrong/I'm right".
Most people prefer peaceful know-it-alls to aggressive people suggesting massmurder and genocide.
>At least 200,000,000 people were killed by authoritarian
>governments in the 20th century. Even assuming that video
>games cause violence (which there is no reason to believe
>is the case), it is really worth implementing police state
>tactics to control video games?
So you are suggesting that scientific study into videogames, will lead to authoritarian government and mass genocide. Wow, I never knew that was the connection!
As for policestate measures, name a country which isn't a defacto policestate. The US and the EU are implementing 'terror related' legislation which STASI and KGB would never even have hoped to implement.
As for the topic at hand, I don't believe in legislation. I believe in proper parenting!
>Clearly, if we can say there is any connection between
>video games and teen violence, we can say there is a 100%
>undeniable connection between censorship and mass-murder.
>The danger of a police state is so extreme, that it dwarfs >any concern over video games by comparison.
I don't accept your reasoning. The study of computergames and their effect on people is important, particularly since most people have a computer and most computerowners have some games for that computer.
>So, Andy, what is there to support your argument besides
>you stating your beliefs?
I am not aware of any books, papers or research papers into mindcontrol, brainwashing etc, which could be considered science. Most of the material I have found have been part of criminal psychology or behavioral psychology, and it doesn't seem as if scientists are really that interested in this stuff. They seem to be happy playing with their rats, mice and fruitflies.
Andy
>everything he knows as fact.
Pot...Kettle...Black?! You can't argue the point, so you attack me instead. Well aren't you clever!
Besides I clearly used terms such as 'I believe' etc. It's hardly my fault if you don't understand what that means.
>The difference between
>FlameDuck and Andy is that Andy uses the term 'My Logic is
>not flawed" and FlameDuck uses "You're wrong/I'm right".
Most people prefer peaceful know-it-alls to aggressive people suggesting massmurder and genocide.
>At least 200,000,000 people were killed by authoritarian
>governments in the 20th century. Even assuming that video
>games cause violence (which there is no reason to believe
>is the case), it is really worth implementing police state
>tactics to control video games?
So you are suggesting that scientific study into videogames, will lead to authoritarian government and mass genocide. Wow, I never knew that was the connection!
As for policestate measures, name a country which isn't a defacto policestate. The US and the EU are implementing 'terror related' legislation which STASI and KGB would never even have hoped to implement.
As for the topic at hand, I don't believe in legislation. I believe in proper parenting!
>Clearly, if we can say there is any connection between
>video games and teen violence, we can say there is a 100%
>undeniable connection between censorship and mass-murder.
>The danger of a police state is so extreme, that it dwarfs >any concern over video games by comparison.
I don't accept your reasoning. The study of computergames and their effect on people is important, particularly since most people have a computer and most computerowners have some games for that computer.
>So, Andy, what is there to support your argument besides
>you stating your beliefs?
I am not aware of any books, papers or research papers into mindcontrol, brainwashing etc, which could be considered science. Most of the material I have found have been part of criminal psychology or behavioral psychology, and it doesn't seem as if scientists are really that interested in this stuff. They seem to be happy playing with their rats, mice and fruitflies.
Andy
They seem to be happy playing with their rats, mice and fruitflies.
That's a funny thing. If the target audience for something is humans, why don't we just ask for human guinea pigs? I mean, why don't we just do tests on prisoners who are getting the death sentence and confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty of the crime they are in for?
> I mean, why don't we just do tests on prisoners who are
> getting the death sentence and confirmed beyond a shadow
> of a doubt to be guilty of the crime they are in for?
A couple reasons.
1 - That would most certainly fall under cruel and unusual punishment if they were forced to do it.
2 - We can at least hope that those who are under a death sentence do not make a valid sample of the general population.
> getting the death sentence and confirmed beyond a shadow
> of a doubt to be guilty of the crime they are in for?
A couple reasons.
1 - That would most certainly fall under cruel and unusual punishment if they were forced to do it.
2 - We can at least hope that those who are under a death sentence do not make a valid sample of the general population.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the money the government wastes goes to private companies, who make a living off of being wasteful.
If you had to use a joystick or a gamepad to control your body then a game would be like real life and thus easy confused. I think for most this is not a problem!
When VR games become the norm, then peoples concepts of reality may become blurred. Then "Sorry , I thought I was in a game!" may become common.
When VR games become the norm, then peoples concepts of reality may become blurred. Then "Sorry , I thought I was in a game!" may become common.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the money the government wastes goes to private companies, who make a living off of being wasteful.
Yes, but if money didn't go to the government in the first place, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone wasting it but ourselves.
>Yes, but if money didn't go to the government in the first
>place, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone wasting it
>but ourselves.
No, you'd have to waste it on personal protection instead. Those who couldn't afford it, would get murdered. A great way to fight poverty - Kill the poor.
Andy
>place, we wouldn't have to worry about anyone wasting it
>but ourselves.
No, you'd have to waste it on personal protection instead. Those who couldn't afford it, would get murdered. A great way to fight poverty - Kill the poor.
Andy
No, you'd have to waste it on personal protection instead. Those who couldn't afford it, would get murdered. A great way to fight poverty - Kill the poor.
Um, the government isn't giving me personal protection very well right now. There isn't any reason to believe that crime has anything to do with law enforcement. The most peaceful places (like say Switzerland), spend almost nothing on law enforcement (compared to other countries). And places like the U.S. or U.K. that have high amounts of crime, spend a boatload and have quite draconian "crime control" measures.
There is every reason to believe that if you had a extremly small, community based police force, that focused on fighting real crimes (murder, break-ins, rape, abduction), and didn't worry about victimless crimes (drugs, prostitution, not wearing your seatbelt or motorcycle helmet, playing violent video games, showing your tits in public, smoking in resterants, etc.), that crime would be a lot lower - and it would cost a fraction of what law enforcement does now.
> that crime would be a lot lower - and it would cost a fraction of what law enforcement does now
Let's take seatbelts as an example. This would only work if and only if everyone also decided to come up with mutually acceptable rules of the road - and everyone paid attention to those rules without threat of legal problems - and the bleeding hearts didn't think that those who did get in an accident but had no insurance (if they were actually driving or not) should be allowed to be denied medical care.
Let's take seatbelts as an example. This would only work if and only if everyone also decided to come up with mutually acceptable rules of the road - and everyone paid attention to those rules without threat of legal problems - and the bleeding hearts didn't think that those who did get in an accident but had no insurance (if they were actually driving or not) should be allowed to be denied medical care.