[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well they have age ratings on video games so "they" must be worried that violent games have an effect on kids

Not really. Basically because of adult themes too much for young children.

It's down to a parent what they allow their kids to watch/play.

Not many videogame serial killer children though funnily enough.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Not really. Basically because of adult themes too much for young children.

It's down to a parent what they allow their kids to watch/play.

Not many videogame serial killer children though funnily enough.

you can't really judge how many serial killer children there may be yet cause they ain't all grown up after playing them (not everyone is sad and middle aged already)

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

you can't really judge how many serial killer children there may be yet cause they ain't all grown up after playing them (not everyone is sad and middle aged already)

Not grown up yet?

I think the children from the "video nasty" era are fully grown by now.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Not grown up yet?

I think the children from the "video nasty" era are fully grown by now.

Rubbish. ..2 girls one cup may just be scratching the surface...when was that?

You also have a ridiculed ice bucket challenge that may effect a child.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Rubbish. ..2 girls one cup may just be scratching the surface...when was that?

You also have a ridiculed ice bucket challenge that may effect a child.

Sure Jan.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well that's how it comes across..where the scientific evidence that my thought processes align with antivaxxers as you suggested, that's your opinion based on nothing isn't it?

Again all subconscious thought and feeling cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny or faith and religion would cease to be.
I will have my bull'sh*t view, you can continue on your mindless quest to be right

Anti-vaxxers views aren't based on scientific fact, they eschew science to believe what they believe. You want to believe that video game/film violence has some sort of serious effect on people but you are trying to make out that your gut feeling can stand on an equal level to decades of studies that say otherwise.

I don't need to be on any quest to be right, I simply am because I base my views on established fact. You are entitled to be wrong and from what I can see, you're making full use of that right.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So due to your exposure at a young age do you feel desensitised, what are your thoughts on those who are knocked sick by screen violence?

I always knew it wasn't real, blood is just cold dyed syrup (if it warms up, it congeals which is why a lot of actors hate doing gore scenes because they'll be covered in cold liquid for hours on end), organs are gelatin and rubber, body parts are just mannequins etc. It's difficult to be 'desensitised' to something that doesn't exist.

I suppose people who do struggle might have an innate fear of blood or gore or they simply weren't raised like I was, with my parents pretty much telling me how each gore affect was created and how it was just mostly made from stuff I'd find in sweets. The reality of violence is different to that of it's simulated counterpart which is why real violence will always affect me.

I think when you aren't raised like I was, you struggle to differentiate the
special effects from reality when it comes to gore. You obviously know it's not real but there's a part of your subconscious that believes, perhaps.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Sure Jan.

One can't judge ones depression on everyone's depression. ..I cant; nor don't.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

well they have age ratings on video games so "they" must be worried that violent games have an effect on kids

Except those ratings aren't based on scientific finding. No certificates from all the way back to 1912 when certificates in the UK first became a thing to now are based on anything other than common sense to try to stop kids from watching and playing stuff deemed inappropriate for them. At first the only two certificates were U which is the same as it is today and A for content that was aimed at adults but could be seen by children if accompanied by an adult (the third certificate to be added was one for horror). None of it is based on anything other than common sense, not scientific research.

I can't say for certain but I think video games were always rated with a similar system to that of films in the UK but in America, there wasn't a ratings system in place for games until the early 90's and that was down to nothing more than the video game moral panic that was stirred up by the media and politicians who wanted to scare the middle classes into buying newspapers and voting. It, again, isn't based on scientific findings either.

The reasons why ratings exist as they do are pure sociological rather than scientific.

Originally Posted by parmnion

I say that's not true due to the amount of money generated from film and gaming. ..but people laugh when I say that the industry is to big to rock. .seemingly only governments are above that ridicule.

Because you're only saying it, not because you have reason to, but because you don't want to admit you're wrong and the things you are spouting is pretty much word for word an anti-vaxxer argument.

They refuse to believe science over their own belief because they they think the science is corrupt and they alone know better. You're putting on the tinfoil hat because you think you know better than science because believing in a non-existent conspiracy is easier than it is to admit you are wrong.

There's so many politicians and powerful organisations out there that would love to be able to turn video games into the boogeyman and have the scientific evidence to back it up that, if such evidence did exist, it would be everywhere. It would be common knowledge, the fact it isn't should tell you everything.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Except those ratings aren't based on scientific finding, no certificates back to 1912 when certificates in the UK first became a thing to now are based on anything other than common sense to try to stop kids from watching and playing stuff deemed inappropriate for them. At first the only two certificates were U which is the same as it is today and A for content that was aimed at adults but could be seen by children if accompanied by an adult (the third certificate to be added was one for horror). None of it is based on anything other than common sense, not scientific research.

I can't say for certain but I think video games were always rated with a similar system to that of films in the UK but in America, there wasn't a ratings system in place for games until the early 90's and that was down to nothing more than the video game moral panic that was stirred up by the media and politicians who wanted to scare the middle classes into buying newspapers and voting. It, again, isn't based on scientific findings either.

The reasons why ratings exist as they do are pure sociological rather than scientific.



Because you're only saying it, not because you have reason to, but because you don't want to admit you're wrong and the things you are spouting is pretty much word for word an anti-vaxxer argument.

They refuse to believe science over their own belief because they they think the science is corrupt and they alone know better. You're putting on the tinfoil hat because you think you know better than science because believing in a non-existent conspiracy is easier than it is to admit you are wrong.

There's so many politicians and powerful organisations out there that would love to be able to turn video games into the boogeyman and have the scientific evidence to back it up that, if such evidence did exist, it would be everywhere. It would be common knowledge, the fact it isn't should tell you everything.

I read all the way down to where you mentioned me...then I saw that word again...switched off..zzzzz

[Beso]

People believe pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies will put prices up when Britain leaves the eu...That's much the same..do you believe they will put prices up in the pharmaceutical section?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

People believe pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies will put prices up when Britain leaves the eu...That's much the same..do you believe they will put prices up in the pharmaceutical section?

Science and economy are two very different things, i'm struggling to get the point you are trying to make and so are you, it seems.

Scienctific fact is scientific fact, you can't seriously argue against it by saying you have a gut feeling.

Economy is a shifting and changing beast, there are no certain facts in how an economy will grow and develop. The fears for the NHS, and the grim analysis are based on the knowledge of the people who work in the NHS and the patterns and history of the NHS and other things that analysts use to make accurate predictions. The NHS is in danger and if it falls, we'll be at risk from a predatory US styled system that's seen big pharma greed hike up prices over 1000% over the past ten years alone despite the fact that nothing has changed in the industry to justify the rising prices.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

One can't judge ones depression on everyone's depression. ..I cant; nor don't.

Except you just have.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You don't have to have your views on anything grounded in science could also be a religious comparison too couldn't it?

It could, but it's not really the same unless you're talking about things such as "the earth is flat" which are 100% false.

Are you saying anti-vaxxers are religious?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Anti-vaxxers views aren't based on scientific fact, they eschew science to believe what they believe. You want to believe that video game/film violence has some sort of serious effect on people but you are trying to make out that your gut feeling can stand on an equal level to decades of studies that say otherwise.

I don't need to be on any quest to be right, I simply am because I base my views on established fact. You are entitled to be wrong and from what I can see, you're making full use of that right.

I haven't suggested they have any 'serious effect'... you're making things up now.
For the final time I am not wrong for explaining how I feel those films affect ME. I'm not trying to make out my gut feeling can stand up to anything...I'm just stating it's ok for me to have a gut feeling, as it impacts on no one but me.

You are obsessing about the views of antivaxxers as if it in any way correlates to what I have stated in this thread. Other than there is no basis in science for either perspective, as there isn't for many things there is no comparison. It's really quite insulting that you keep referring back to that as they are a rather extreme group whos actions could have serious consequences.

A personal opinion on how they affect others then yes I may be wrong for that presumption. I haven't done that ...all ive done is explain how they impact me personally . You have no right to suggest that your knowledge of scientific research into the subject qualifies you to say that I'm wrong for that Dezzy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

It could, but it's not really the same unless you're talking about things such as "the earth is flat" which are 100% false.

Are you saying anti-vaxxers are religious?

Nope... I'm saying there is the concept of blind faith and the feeling that something is real for you even though there is no supporting evidence or scientific proof.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Nope... I'm saying there is the concept of blind faith and the feeling that something is real for you even though there is no supporting evidence or scientific proof.

But, there's a difference between faith in something of which there is no supporting evidence and faith in something of which there is supporting evidence to the contrary. A belief in God is the former, an anti-vaxxer is the latter.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

But, there's a difference between faith in something of which there is no supporting evidence and faith in something of which there is supporting evidence to the contrary. A belief in God is the former, an anti-vaxxer is the latter.

Did I mention antivaxxers? We are supposedly discussing violence in film.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Did I mention antivaxxers? We are supposedly discussing violence in film.

You responded to a comment I made about the validity of the comparison to an anti-vaxxer. So, that's what I was referring to.

[Livia]

I think the Bible has produced more killers than violent films and games. I'm all for age restrictions, but that's all.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You responded to a comment I made about the validity of the comparison to an anti-vaxxer. So, that's what I was referring to.

I wasn't comparing antivaxxers to anything, all I have said is thier veiws are nothing like mine.
So nope I'm not saying antivaxxers are religious.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

But why are antivaxxers relevant to the debate?

Are you asking me to mansplain?

You've taken part in the thread, you know how they came into the discussion. I won't insult you by stating the obvious.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

I think the Bible has produced more killers than violent films and games. I'm all for age restrictions, but that's all.

Yeah but, no mentally sane person reads the Bible and transforms into a killer. They had to have excessive external influence or mental health problems to begin with. The bible became their excuse or outlet. Without the bible, it would've been the Quran. Without the Quran... maybe Harry Potter?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah but, no mentally sane person reads the Bible and transforms into a killer. They had to have excessive external influence or mental health problems to begin with. The bible became their excuse or outlet. Without the bible, it would've been the Quran. Without the Quran... maybe Harry Potter?

LOL... yeah, that's true. It's just that so many nutters seem to have some kind of holy book in their hand... but I totally agree.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Are you asking me to mansplain?

You've taken part in the thread, you know how they came into the discussion. I won't insult you by stating the obvious.

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.