[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Oh I amended this post... never mind.

I know how they came to be in the thread yes with a rather unfair and unwarranted comparison to my views.

My definition of blind faith is one where there is no basis for a belief something you feel personally like a religious belief, it has no scientific or rational basis nor is there any physical proof

This can't be true of antivaxxers as it has already been proven that their beliefs that vaccines cause issues has been scientifically discredited.

And do you not feel that the decades of research to the contrary has not discredited the movie/video game created psychopath?

Fair enough.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And do you not feel that the decades of research to the contrary has not discredited the movie/video game created psychopath?

Fair enough.

That has nothing to do with the issue you just asked me to explain, nothing to do with my personal view and nothing to do with any point I've raised in this thread.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

That has nothing to do with the issue you just asked me to explain, nothing to do with my personal view and nothing to do with any point I've raised in this thread.

Yes, it does.

The point of anti-vaxxers coming into the discussion was the holding of a belief despite any scientific evidence that points to the contrary.

So, therefore my question to you became, do you not feel there is sufficient evidence to the contrary in regards to violence in games/movies and their effect on people?

If not, fair enough.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, it does.

The point of anti-vaxxers coming into the discussion was the holding of a belief despite any scientific evidence that points to the contrary.

So, therefore my question to you became, do you not feel there is sufficient evidence to the contrary in regards to violence in games/movies and their effect on people?

If not, fair enough.

I have answered that too if you read through my responses, I accept that there are studies and the evaluation on the GP... however, that is not my personal experience. It is this very individual perspective that I've drawn on throughout the thread.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I have answered that too if you read through my responses, I accept that there are studies and the evaluation on the GP... however, that is not my personal experience. It is this very individual perspective that I've drawn on throughout the thread.

Nobody said it wasn't your own perspective.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Nobody said it wasn't your own perspective.

The accusation was that my perspective of my own personal reactions were wrong... because of scientific studies.

Which is why I raised the issue of religion, an accepted personal belief also with no basis in science.

If the religious and vegans are entitled to a personal belief system so am I!

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

The accusation was that my perspective of my own personal reactions were wrong... because of scientific studies.

Which is why I raised the issue of religion, an accepted personal belief also with no basis in science.

If the religious and vegans are entitled to a personal belief system so am I!

Nobody said you weren't entitled to it.

They're allowed to tell you why they think you're wrong due to scientific studies to the contrary.

I would say that the existence of a God not being scientifically proven wrong is not the same thing. You're essentially saying you believe there are psychos created by violent video games/movies but we haven't met them yet.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Nobody said you weren't entitled to it.

They're allowed to tell you why they think you're wrong due to scientific studies to the contrary.

I would say that the existence of a God not being scientifically proven wrong is not the same thing. You're essentially saying you believe there are psychos created by violent video games/movies but we haven't met them yet.

And I suppose your not wrong for saying they're right for saying I'm wrong... bore off!

Wrong... I haven't said that in your pedantic orgy you've totally misinterpreted my position, but luckily for you I'm past caring.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

And I suppose your not wrong for saying they're right for saying I'm wrong... bore off!

Wrong... I haven't said that in your pedantic orgy you've totally misinterpreted my position, but luckily for you I'm past caring.

So, you're allowed a view and nobody else is allowed to comment on your view?

You're allowed to use an analogy, but if anyone else does they're going off topic?

Grow up Kizzy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, you're allowed a view and nobody else is allowed to comment on your view?

You're allowed to use an analogy, but if anyone else does they're going off topic?

Grow up Kizzy.

Yes I'm allowed a personal belief and nobody has the right to suggest that personal belief is wrong.

This 'analogy' is it the one that compares my personal belief to antivaxxers?
I have explained at length the difference between those.

This is becoming rather insidious, it's gaslighting you do realise that.... I'm being made out to be wrong, like abusive persons or anti science for explaining how this issue impacts on me personally. Not others, not societally, me.

I've said all I have to say in relation to my feelings on how this subject affects me personally, I've explained my stance to the nth degree.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes, it does.

The point of anti-vaxxers coming into the discussion was the holding of a belief despite any scientific evidence that points to the contrary.

So, therefore my question to you became, do you not feel there is sufficient evidence to the contrary in regards to violence in games/movies and their effect on people?

If not, fair enough.

Yup, that's the point I'm making. I wasn't calling Kizzy an anti-vaxxer, I just wanted to make a point that it's a similar argument that they use, that they value their gut feelings over facts and evidence to the contrary. As I said before, Parm also used a classic anti-vaxxer argument in that he believes experts, studies and anything that goes against his own beliefs is inherently corrupt which is a very common accusation levied at doctors by anti-vaxxers.

At the end of the day, reality and the facts do not support the belief that video games or violent films can turn someone who isn't violent, violent.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes I'm allowed a personal belief and nobody has the right to suggest that personal belief is wrong.

This 'analogy' is it the one that compares my personal belief to antivaxxers?
I have explained at length the difference between those.

This is becoming rather insidious, it's gaslighting you do realise that.... I'm being made out to be wrong, like abusive persons or anti science for explaining how this issue impacts on me personally. Not others, not societally, me.

I've said all I have to say in relation to my feelings on how this subject affects me personally, I've explained my stance to the nth degree.

Nobody is allowed to suggest your view is wrong and it's gaslighting to say so?

The most ridiculous thing I've read on this forum by a country mile.

Believe what you like Kizzy, nobody has said any different. But if someone holds an opposing view that they believe refutes yours they will post it. That's why it's called the debate forum.

If you want to shout out into the wind and get no response an online forum is not for you. Maybe invest in a megaphone.

[Marsh.]

And btw you've not said anything about how it affects you personally. That's part of the problem, you've offered no back up for your stance on the subject other than a feeling.

This isn't a discussion about religion so a "feeling" isn't really relevant.

[Jessica.]

I completely understand where Marsh is coming from. Having uncommon beliefs such as being anti-vax, a climate change denyer, or a flat earther are all comparable things. It does not mean a single person who agrees with one if those things is the same as the others, they are comparably un-scientific.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yup, that's the point I'm making. I wasn't calling Kizzy an anti-vaxxer, I just wanted to make a point that it's a similar argument that they use, that they value their gut feelings over facts and evidence to the contrary. As I said before, Parm also used a classic anti-vaxxer argument in that he believes experts, studies and anything that goes against his own beliefs is inherently corrupt which is a very common accusation levied at doctors by anti-vaxxers.

At the end of the day, reality and the facts do not support the belief that video games or violent films can turn someone who isn't violent, violent.

I have addressed the difference many times... it's not a similar argument at all, not even nearly.
A personal belief relating to your own pyche is nothing like an ethical stance relating to the health of others.
This 'gut feeling' you keep referring back to is what you are using as a link between my view and theirs? To me that's a bit silly, there are lots of things folk have 'gut feelings' about .. that there's aliens, God , ghosts.. the loch Ness monster!

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

And btw you've not said anything about how it affects you personally. That's part of the problem, you've offered no back up for your stance on the subject other than a feeling.

This isn't a discussion about religion so a "feeling" isn't really relevant.

Ive said nothing but how it affects me personally. ..
Why are feelings only relevant in discussions about religion?

All I can do is comment from my own perspective, and that includes how these films make me feel. Not you, not dezzy, not the cat, me.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

I completely understand where Marsh is coming from. Having uncommon beliefs such as being anti-vax, a climate change denyer, or a flat earther are all comparable things. It does not mean a single person who agrees with one if those things is the same as the others, they are comparably un-scientific.

That's true, and if I were suggesting my views on video nasties extended into wider society then I too would be unscientific...the simple fact is, I'm not.

[Parmy]

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

I'm pretty sure the arguments that were made against this when LT post it still stands.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

But films or games can't make a person violent and no amount of twisting or clickbait on your part will change the fact that no such link exists.

When you say arguments against. ..Im assuming this is the post you meant.

Perhaps read the thing.


https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/violent-video-games

Posting the same link that's already been dealt with in the thread won't work, Parm. You should also read it before you post it because it's not what you think it is.

It's basically saying that gaming is highly popular, there's been a lot of studies with similar results that people have interpreted in different ways despite the results being similar every time. There's little to no conclusions in that article.

Video games or films do not make people violent.

Hell, playing and watching these things certainly has made me or the other people in this thread with similar experiences no less emphatic or prone to violence. I feel faint when confronted with footage of people who have actually been harmed, maimed or killed and it seems like the same is true for other people too but, to piggy back off of TS's point. There's a lot of people who will clutch their their pearls over a video game but are desensitised to dead immigrant children washing up on shore.

I'd rather be unbothered by simulated violence and affected by the real life equivalent then pretend to be offended by simulated violence but be unaffected by witnessing actual death and harm.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Posting the same link that's already been dealt with in the thread won't work, Parm. You should also read it before you post it because it's not what you think it is.

It's basically saying that gaming is highly popular, there's been a lot of studies with similar results that people have interpreted in different ways despite the results being similar every time. There's little to no conclusions in that article.

Video games or films do not make people violent.

Hell, playing and watching these things certainly has made me or the other people in this thread with similar experiences no less emphatic or prone to violence. I feel faint when confronted with footage of people who have actually been harmed, maimed or killed and it seems like the same is true for other people too but, to piggy back off of TS's point. There's a lot of people who will clutch their their pearls over a video game but are desensitised to dead immigrant children washing up on shore.

I'd rather be unbothered by simulated violence and affected by the real life equivalent then pretend to be offended by simulated violence but be unaffected by witnessing actual death and harm.

I posted your previous response to the findings by the American psycholigy association..that is not dealing with it at all...you have rebutted nothing that the findings have said..

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Ive said nothing but how it affects me personally. ..
Why are feelings only relevant in discussions about religion?

All I can do is comment from my own perspective, and that includes how these films make me feel. Not you, not dezzy, not the cat, me.

I know you can. And all I can do is comment my views on that. Not sure what you're expecting.

You having a 'feeling' that these games are no good is not an example of an actual effect of the games but a superstition you have. Apparently, based on no experience you've mentioned.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I posted your previous response to the findings by the American psycholigy association..that is not dealing with it at all...you have rebutted nothing that the findings have said..

You've clearly not read your own link or my response well because it doesn't say anything conclusive one way or another, it's just an overview of the studies that have been taken place as well as a review of the media's interpretation but it draws no conclusions of it's own. If you're going to link something, make sure to actually read it first.

Again, nothing you have linked overrides the fact that decades of research has turned up no link between violence in video games and violence in real life. You cannot watch or play something and become violent if you aren't already a violent person. Fictional media cannot inspire a desire to harm and kill in the mind of someone who wasn't already that way inclined, you're essentially blaming triggers (which literally can be anything) instead of looking at the big picture.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You've clearly not read your own link or my response well because it doesn't say anything conclusive one way or another, it's just an overview of the studies that have been taken place as well as a review of the media's interpretation but it draws no conclusions of it's own. If you're going to link something, make sure to actually read it first.

Again, nothing you have linked overrides the fact that decades of research has turned up no link between violence in video games and violence in real life. You cannot watch or play something and become violent if you aren't already a violent person. Fictional media cannot inspire a desire to harm and kill in the mind of someone who wasn't already that way inclined, you're essentially blaming triggers (which literally can be anything) instead of looking at the big picture.

It's actually the findings and recommendations of all those studies.