In case anyone gives a crap...

[Tale]

So what if there is "training." The person still has control. The person playing the game still has free will. Blaming a game for someone's behavior makes as much sense as someone blaming the gun for shooting someone.

You're the first person to bring up blame. Nobody's blaming anything for anyone's actions.

[Sand]

It is implied by the use of "training."

[Tale]

It is implied by the use of "training."

No, it's not. We train people in things all of the time. When someone causes a car accident, do we blame their driving instructor (the one who trained them), or them? Acknowledging where behaviors are learned is not shifting the blame.

 

We're talking about how to avoid it in the future, not who to blame.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Tale

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I think that anyone can be trained, or brainwashed, if they absorb too much of a certain media -although this is yet to be proved-, and it is true that most games are designed to be emotionally and psychologically riveting - lest people get boarded or uninterested. However, if you balance your gaming with a, quote-unquote, "normal life" you should be fine, barring some other issue, and should not worry about the negative consequences of your media - if any exist. Basically, unless you are playing Halo 3, Half Life 2, or any other game for prolonged periods with no outside interaction -by long I mean many months, if not years- you should be fine - although I will admit that games like Call of Duty are more likely to be harmful then, say, Peggle....

[Sand]

I don't see anything to avoid. People have free will, so games, regardless of rating, will only affect them if they let it. People have a choice. Plain and simple.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I agree that people have a choice, but too much of one thing may sway their judgment.

[Walsingham]

Something's coalesced for me, which is what you might call 'reasonable use' defence. That is, there are things, from computer games, to Ben & Jerry's ice-cream, to jogging, which are dangerous if used beyond reasonable levels; but which are neutral and even beneficial within reasonable use levels.

 

Society at present seems to be struggling to cope with many of these things. Fast food, alcohol, sex, among them. Does that sound true?

[Sand]

I can agree with that.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Sounds about right...

[Walsingham]

Cool. Now, to be a bit more risky, what IF the reason we're struggling with them is that in fact society is working, rather than failing? It's easy to get these things because we are prosperous, and there are a lot of safety nets to catch us when we do overindulge. Like alka-seltzer and re-runs of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

[Tale]

I think I get what you're saying now. And I'd disagree. I don't think society is struggling with them. Some aspects of society disagree with other aspects of society in regards to them. I don't think it's fair to say society is struggling with them, but that society is having a civil dispute with itself.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Tale

[Walsingham]

I wouldn't object to that. I don't buy the notion of society as a general rule.