>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