Lurker > asdf8562

CruelBuffalo posted...

s0nicfan posted...

CruelBuffalo posted...

s0nicfan posted...

I fully support more restrictive gun laws, but you're making yourself look stupid by posting this.

What was incorrect about it?

I'll explain it to you if you really need me to explain it to you. Do you need me to?

Please

They are making the mental health argument. They are trying to claim that it isn't the gun that is the problem, but the repetitive violent actions that leads to Violent people. That is why they will make claims like owning a gun is fine, but simulated murder is not. Because the gun itself doesn't turn people into murderers, but killing people all the time in games does.

To quote Westworld, these violent Delights have violent ends.

That Smash won't come out in 2018

MuffinzwOrned posted...

i mean

we know we're getting it in 2018

that's not nothing

No we don't. It baffles me that people still blindly trust release year announcements with so little information. I bet you thought Breath of the Wild was coming out in 2015

I'm 26 and the youngest I'd date would be 21

COVxy posted...

The evidence is pretty solid that violent video game exposure increases aggression, but it's silly to blame school shootings on this.

I have a hard time believing this since violent games do the opposite for me. Whenever I feel like punching a wall or yelling at someone I play a shooter or something just as violent. It takes the stress out of me and after I'm finished with the game I don't feel aggressive IRL.

It already does. Many stores have policy dictating they will not sell AO rated games.

Funkydog posted...

Is that something that would really happen?

Not banned, no. Stores just won't sell them.

So did this happen yet or what's going on here?

I'm just saying. I got a Direct to watch this eve.

asdf8562 posted...

The fact of the matter is plenty of studies have been performed and studies support both and both cherry pick. You coming in and claiming the side you believe is unbiased is about as relavent as me coming in and saying the same while posting the evidence that proves my case.

Not really, as I've actually looked through this literature before.

asdf8562 posted...

It is false as the opposite can be argued with evidence.

Not if you actually look at the evidence in an unbiased manner. You can cherry pick certain studies, or misrepresent the claim one way or another, but the causal effect of violent video game exposure on aggression is pretty much one of the most replicated effects in social psychology.

Even in the most prominent detractor's meta-analyses, he still finds evidence of the effect, which he simply argues is of a sufficiently small effect size that we shouldn't care about it. But it still exists.

P4wn4g3 posted...

false causation

Nothing false about it lol.

The evidence is pretty solid that violent video game exposure increases aggression, but it's silly to blame school shootings on this.

@HypnoCoosh posted...

@asdf8562 posted...

Thats the rule already.

A 7 year old cant walk into Target and buy GTA.

How does the law work on this exactly? Honest question.

There is no law preventing a 7 year old from buying GTA. Checking for ID to confirm you're an adult for M rated games is store policy, not law.

asdf8562 posted...

Thats the rule already.

A 7 year old cant walk into Target and buy GTA.

How does the law work on this exactly? Honest question.

Honestly they'll probably just handle it like liquor or tobacco, where you have to show Id no matter what unless you very obviously look old enough.

Godnorgosh posted...

Giant_Aspirin posted...

how much of that do you think is "lifestyle inflation"? aka people thinking their expenses are "needs" when, really, they're "nice to haves".

I'm talking more like "I have a college degree, I make $11/hr, I bring my lunch to work every day, and I have nothing or close to nothing left after rent and utilities. Also, I don't have Internet or health insurance."

Shouldn't have gotten a useless liberal arts degree then.