Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Taken directly from Ferguson

Anderson and Dill claim to offer causal evidence for the video game aggression link. However a close read of their article suggests otherwise. The authors use four seperate measures of aggression provided by a "noise blast" program (which punishes players with an irritating white noise) and find signififcance for only one of the fou. Had the authors examined the confidence intervals around the effect size for these findings they would have found that such a confidence interval crosses zero and thus should not be considered "proof" of a positive finding. Thus their experimental study questions the causal link between video game violence and aggression rather than supports it. The authors also use an un-standardized version of the "noise blast" program. In a similar study, Ferguson et al. using a newly standardized and reliable version of the "noise blast" program found no relationship between violent game exposure and aggression.

(I could not copy and paste all of that I had to literally retype it from the journal so there may be spelling errors).

Although really if you think the noise blast method is effective then the Bible causes people to be aggresive Bible study

I find it sad that you rely on just one person who is clearly biased as all hell who only has two or three sources that aren't himself to debunk mine.

Oh well I've stated repeatedly that the courts do not buy ANY of the studies and it has been ruled repeatedly that the evidence is not good enough.

At 3/27/08 09:07 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 09:00 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: You idiot the very link you just re-posted is about a law dealing with violent video games being declared unconstitutional.

lol okay, I'm the idiot but you didn't even realize I was posting YOUR link to show you it was irrelevant to the discussion. Do you even know what you're posting?

Oklahoma
California
Judge orders legal fees from Louisiana's failed law
The Louisiana bill
If you don't like heavy reading

*yawn*

These are state cases, probably dealing with the state constitution. I'm sure if it was taken federally to the Supreme Court then there would be legal ground to restrict the sale of violent video games, on the same standard we ban marijuana and restrict alcohol to persons 21 and over.

They all deal with the 1st and 14th amendment not state amendments and they rely on supreme court precedent.

Although marijuana and alcohol are banned because they have proven detrimental health effects on children (and everyone else). All of the courts so far have agreed that the evidence saying games cause harm isn't good enough.

You say it would be constitutional based on . . . what exactly? Are you a judge? You sure as hell don't have any court precedent to back up your claims.

Oh and if we gave ESRB ratings the force of law that would be giving a private group (the ESRB) governmental powers which is unconstitutional.

I never suggested giving the ESRB government powers. I suggested the government enforces the rating system. The ESRB would have no power.

Wrong.

If the ESRB rated a game M then (under your proposal) it could no legally be sold to anyone under 17, thereofre the ESRB has the power to say what videogames kids can have legal acsess to therefore they have power.

I'm going to go through your entire BS response later, but first of all how the hell does a 'myth busting' piece from 2003 debunk a meta-analysis study from 2007? Does the man own a time machine?

At 3/27/08 08:34 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 08:17 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: States have tried to pass laws exactly as you described and ALL of them have been ruled unconstitutional by courts and this has resulting in the states being fined legal fees in the hundreds of thousands.

Unconstitutional on what grounds? Show me the case where the courts have said you mustn't check ID to make sure children aren't buy M rated games. Show me the case where the courts have penalized states for enforcing the rating of the ESRB?

You must be thinking of some other law proposed, what I am proposing is in no way unconstitutional.

You idiot the very link you just re-posted is about a law dealing with violent video games being declared unconstitutional.

But if you want more court cases.

"...[T]here is a complete dearth of legislative findings, scientific studies, or other rationale to support passage of the Act,"

Oklahoma

California

Judge orders legal fees from Louisiana's failed law

The Louisiana bill

If you don't like heavy reading

Oh and if we gave ESRB ratings the force of law that would be giving a private group (the ESRB) governmental powers which is unconstitutional.

At 3/27/08 08:26 PM, Grammer wrote:

Hi there

Been discussed

Over here, yoohoo

Been discussed

Don't forget about me!

Here's a quote taken from that study.

"It is important to remember that the data presented here are correlational, and we cannot conclude that playing violent video games caused the changes in aggressive cognition and behavior."

The study

Page 20 paragraph 3.

Hey guys, this is the BBC here. Why do you always leave me out? This isn't funny :(

That uses the very very flawed 'noise blast' method that yields false positives (other people did a study that used the noise blast method to conclude that the Bible makes people aggressive, it's the last link I posted to in that really big response).

Stop whining source of the BBC, I'm a pdf file and I rarely get attention

Aw a meta-analysis from 2001. I prefer one from 2007. Why look it has a much different conclusion.

Link 1Same study but look it's in a REAL psychiatric journal

My hyperlinks have become sentient beings, apparently.

The APA is trying to make it's argument off of book keeping, trying to correlate things that have been proven to video games. The only problem is they don't correlate since IN PRACTICE video games don't increase aggression. Sorry but I'm not going to fall for an argument just because it's by a so called authority.

You're not going to believe what the largest organization of American psychologists has to say.

You're going to blindly believe what they say? That's also sad. (although I did post a link regarding the APA before how kind of you to ignore it).

At 3/26/08 11:36 PM, Grammer wrote: Because he's posting like 20 different links, many of which aren't even relevant to the effects of violent media on children.

Which one isn't relevant? Really I'd love to know.

At 3/26/08 07:38 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/24/08 09:37 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: Second in regards to the APA
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/09/19/no-di rect-causal-link-between-games-violence-
in-apa-report/#comments

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most -kids-unaffected-by-violent-games/2007/0 4/01/1175366055463.html

The problems I have with these studies is that they didn't compare or contrast to children who played a different sort of game. I found this article to be very informative, you should read it and educate yourself.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/

Your studies also makes the problem of assuming that violence is the only side effect to playing violent video games. In the study I posted, children were given an MRI immediately after playing a shooting game, or a racing game. Clearly, there is nothing more proof-positive than this.

Nonsense.

First off that study can only show the short term side effects of video games not the long term. It could be very possible that the effects wear off quickly.

Secondly they increase emotional arousal and that makes them more violent? Hmm I bet if you took an MRI from a child who just rode a roller coaster you'd get something similar. Hell you'd probably get an increase in emotional arousal from listening to a good rock and roll song (or some other type of music they like).

And wait a minute they found something similar to kids watching clips of Rocky which is odd isn't it.

Also they used Medal of Honor which is a T rated game.

(P.S. in another post you claimed grand theft auto had rape in it which is not true).

At 3/27/08 05:56 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 3/27/08 05:39 PM, Christopherr wrote: I realize that they are out to make a profit, but companies fear the lawsuit so much that they change policy after one successful lawsuit.

Okay, you don't understand me clearly, I'm proposing a win-win scenario. You are proposing a "Let's scare them into voluntarily doing the right thing." Now ask yourself: Why. Why hope for the best when you can mandate what should already be?

What's stopping me from going onto eBay, and selling my CoD3 and TimeSplitters 2 to the highest bidder, even if they're lying about their age. That's right, nothing. NOTHING. eBay won't be sued, they'll claim they're not selling the ones selling the game. That is one of the many reasons why we need federal intervention. Federal mandate would stop eBay from peddling video games altogether, or at least put heavy restrictions on it.

Laws can accomplish things that actions done through fear cannot. The latter, is easily reneged. Lawsuits are not. A company can say: "You know, I think the heat about violent video games is dying down, and we need to make a profit... let's start selling to kids until someone complains, just don't tell anyone about it. A law will mandate that companies follow this policy, or else.

Do I have to say it again? I guess I will.

States have tried to pass laws exactly as you described and ALL of them have been ruled unconstitutional by courts and this has resulting in the states being fined legal fees in the hundreds of thousands.

Although there is no law against seeling a ticket to an R rated movie to a child or the unrated version of Saw to a child or a violent book to a child, why do we need them for games?

At 3/24/08 11:26 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 3/22/08 09:58 AM, Mr-Money wrote: LazyDrunk, you're a smart but uninformed individual.

Washington DC - outright gun ban

Shut the fuck up.

Gun-control advocates have succefully appealed this to the supreme court. While they make their decision the law still stands.

You get sued?

I've never heard of such a thing. From what I heard shooting someone who breaks into your house is perfectly legal. Do you have any sources?

At 3/24/08 10:51 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: This video shows why Hillary is a horrible woman. (It's at around 1:13).

In case the video player doesn't work she says

"We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco or alcohol."

That to me is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard any of the candidates say.

Forgot the link to the video, my mistake

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.
jhtml?videoId=125316&title=black-back-in -black-pet-causes

This video shows why Hillary is a horrible woman. (It's at around 1:13).

In case the video player doesn't work she says

"We need to treat violent video games the way we treat tobacco or alcohol."

That to me is one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard any of the candidates say.

At 3/24/08 09:30 PM, Srath wrote: If there was any less gun control there would be a lot of shootings. What are you supposed to do if a criminal enters your house? Shoot him? Tell him to leave or you will shoot? Both would just cause you to be shot by the criminal.

Not necesarily.

A guy breaks into my house, I can shoot him in the leg arm or hand. Hitting any of these places will cause the criminal immense pain and will probably make him collapse or at least render him unable to shoot back.

Or of course I could just shoot him dead, a guarantee that he won't shoot back.

I have done a paper on this for high school so I think I should adress the issues brought up here.

First off many states have tried to make it illegal to sell violent games to minors but they have all been ruled unconstitutional and cost the states hunderds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Why?

Because games have been ruled to be free speech and thus the states can ban the sale of them from minors only if they can prove that they are harmful to minors (hence why porn is illegal for minors).

And the courts have ruled that the evidence is insufficient EVERY SINGLE TIME (and the states can use any and all studies they can get their hands on but the burden still rests on the states to prove they cause harm).

The most recent of these occured this very month
http://www.startribune.com/local/1674935 1.html

Second in regards to the APA
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/09/19/no-di rect-causal-link-between-games-violence-
in-apa-report/#comments

Third
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6621 7176984x7477/

(and yes I have the full study printed from a university right here in my hand) and he cites more people than your guy)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Most -kids-unaffected-by-violent-games/2007/0 4/01/1175366055463.html

http://www.theesa.com/facts/third_party.
php#violence

http://www.gamecouch.com/2008/02/intervi ew-dr-cheryl-olson-co-author-of-grand-th eft-childhood/

http://content.apa.org/journals/emo/8/1/
114
(not sure about that study though, it looks a bit flimsy in methodology).

Here are some interviews:
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/article.asp?
SCID=27&CIID=104069

http://southeastpsych.blogspot.com/2008/
02/video-games-and-aggression.html

And finally yes big groups like the APA really do make studies with serious flaws in them.
Although if you believe every study we should start banning book stores from selling the bible to college kids.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,66 0199036,00.html

(Just to clarify that last study used a very flimsy methodology and should not be taken seriously).

Oh and I just did some research and I came upon this scary bit of news

Police are NOT obligated to help if you are being attacked by someone, that and the fact that they can't be there in 10 seconds if they want to help are exactly why we need guns.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler -protection.html

For more information just look up Warren v. District of Columbia (the 1981 case) where it was ruled that
Police are "not generally liable to victims of violent criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection."

So if we can't count on police to protect us what can we rely on? (Hint: the answer has a trigger and kills people very easily).

At 3/24/08 01:57 AM, DawnOfDusk wrote: We were given the when Americans needed it to fight the indians and other peps (eventually the British)(Oh and Americans in the past were fucking morons, if you didn't know that already) and sense we are no longer in danger of a raid in our town (for the most part) we are no longer in need of pointless weapons such as guns, now blades are understandable, but guns if were heavily enforced against, our society would be a much better place...

The police cannot be there in 10 seconds, whilst you're being mugged or robbed or whatnot and we need guns in case our government becomes tyrannical and tries to take away our liberties.

Wow, think ahead. Try this one on for size.
Rampages in the streets = ppl get scared
When ppl get scared they panic
Many gun accidents have happened out of panic.

That's also true for soldiers and the police shall we not let them have guns as well?

I think guns would really make the death rate higher had everyone go to the streets, it would be person with gun wins, and its not like the good guy is always gonna get the gun...

Yes but gun bans practically guarantee that the good guy will not have a gun because the bad guy can still get his guns from the black market whilst the good guy can no longer get his gun.

Let me put it this way, if we could, by any chance just end gun control without any hassle, would you?

YES!

I think that the time he was born that palce was under American control and technically counted as American soil.

At 3/20/08 05:45 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

At 3/20/08 10:14 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Since you've been espousing such insightrful and intelligent posts, I'm compelled to read on, and reply.

Let me make this very clear to you. You are not intelligent. You are an idiot. You have ABSOLUTELY NO idea of what you're talking about. All you know how to do is make stupid witty comments. You are a fool. You would be much better suited talking about hip-hop.

Dude you either are a complete moron or you have no idea how the hell a debate works.

You have provided no sources as to why the NRA isn't pro-gun, and you have given no reasons as to why Lazydrunk is an idiot, none. You instead think that doing nothing but isnulting him is somehow adequate yet instead it is nothing but the ad hominem fallacy.

If you're going to make crazy claims like "the NRA is duping people who are anti-gun control" you need to back it up with evidence or at least a damn source. (And don't cite a source and tell me to do my research, backing up those claims is your job, not mine).

I meant studenrs, NOT adults. If a child wanted to shoot up his campus no amount of metal detectors or 'gun-free zone' BS would stop them. Besides we're talking about college campuses where the students ARE adults (with the occasional genius who skips grades and gets into college younger than most people).

At 3/12/08 07:21 PM, KardedKattle wrote: Well not to mention the fact that pedophilia is a very easy crime to fake, especially in divorce cases, I believe there was a woman who bribed her daughter with a pony to say that her father raped her.

dude you have to give me a link for this I can't find the story.

School shootings are so stupidly rare why waste money on guardsman? Just give the teachers handguns and a small amount of training (may not even be that necessary) problem solved.

Or even better let kids with concealed weapon permits carry them on campus (if the students want to).

Oh and gun control is not evil, it's just stupid and very misguided. Their motives are good but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

At 3/18/08 07:04 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: We have never before had a piece of the Bill Of Rights revoked. The day the second amendment is repealed is the second the first amendment gets repealed.

Which means, in a nutshell, the day that the second amendment is repealed is the day I purchase as many guns as I can, and shoot anyone who tries to strip me of them.

I agree wholeheartedly it reminds me of something someone else said (forgive for potentially de-railing the topic).

The day they ban flag burning is the day I burn one for then it no longer represents the freedoms I hold dear.

This is why we need guns, why we really need guns, self-defense is the icing on the cake we really need them to protect ourselves in case our government goes corrupt and tries to take away our liberties (anyone who thinks that will never happen needs to take a refresher in history).

Zeistro i think you're forgetting something (my favorite quote).

Jefferson: What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

Oh and I know that someone here will argue that the second amendment is outdated which is somehow a justifiable reason to get rid of it. To them I say this.
By any defintion that includes the 2nd amendment as outdated, the 3rd amendment is also outdated. Shall we get rid of that and start quartering troops in private homes?

thanks. I'm going to try blackvector's advice, and if that doesn't work I'll let you know.

Someone on another forum put it best this way:

Polluting the environment is a sin? I guess that means driving to church is now a sin.

Hello demi-gods of the programming forums (I'm new here in case you couldn't tell). I'm busy making a small website and besides a host and a domain name (both of which I can find by myself) I only need one more feature. I need to know how to get a poll that can display the results and will allow me to recognize vote stacking (and I also may need to be able to hide results but that's not guaranteed). I've looked for some free polls but they all either have ads or they don't have the features I need (read vote stacking).

So if any of you could help me out I will be much obliged and if not I'll bite the bullet and continue my as of now fruitless search for a free poll that will help me out.

At 1/28/08 09:09 PM, Psych0Penguin wrote: What i don't understand is how the ESRB has the right to change a game's rating based on things that came out after the game's original release. Correct me if i'm wrong, but to the best of my knowledge the game Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was T until someone made a nude mod for it on the PC, at which time both the PC and the 360 versions were upped to M. I'm not absolutely sure that this is what happened, but as far as I know it is.

I think the nude mods were in the game, although as with Hot Coffee there was no way ot accsess them outside of a mod. Now if the modder actually created the nude skins then it would be T.

At 1/26/08 04:50 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

:I think that the rating system needs a reform, and that stores need to enforce the ratings because that will shut up the parents and keep the government out of the picture. If people feel that the ratings are doing nothing because they're inaccurate and poorly enforced, they're going to demand government regulation.

That's the thing though stores ARE enforcing the rating. Every year the percentages of stores that sell M games to those under 17 goes down. This is usually ignored when politicians try to blame games and instead they use a study from a couple years ago where the percentages were high, ignoring the fact that the most recent version sasy their low.