Originally Posted by Vroomfunkel
You're absolutely right and I think most people would agree that if stopping the sale of violent games and movies really would stop violence then it should be done. You're right that no amount of fun and money for the publishers is worth bloodshed. But. Big But. I cannot equate someone watching a violent act on a television, or quasi-participating in an imaginary violent attack in a video game with an actual act of murderous violence. I dont know what it's like to kill someone with a claw hammer, but I imagine that the state of mind you'd have to be in to do such a thing would be... well probably like an advanced schizophrenic episode. What we're talking about is someone who says they killed someone - with a claw hammer - because they saw a DEPICTION of said act on a television. How can that be a legitimate excuse? How can there be ANY excuse for this? Notice that this kid is going to jail, not the programmers that made the game. Obvioulsy we know who's really at fault here. But the video game is expected to share the blame. If there were no visual depictions of violence - then violence would not exist. If this was true, I'm sure most people would agree that violent imagery is not worth having. Maybe it's not worth having anyway. It's a hard thing to defend, a game like Manhunter, which uses over-the-top violence as, at best, a gimmick. But I believe that violence does, and always has existed apart from dramaticized violence. And using a dramatic portrayal of violence as a way to excuse this kid's behavior sounds like the kind of thing a mother would say who doesnt want to believe her child is psychotic. So it's understandable, but I dont believe it's the truth. Of course I say this as someone who's been playing video games for 25 years who doesnt want to believe anyone would ever be negatively influenced by them.
Reply With Quote
