Influence is not cause. You claimed cause in the beginning. Now you claim simple influence. A pretty significant shift in your position.
If that's what you are concluding, then I guess I really didn't make myself clear in previous posts. I am and have always been talking about influence(s). Perhaps what you are referring regarding my posts, is that I believe that all of these influences, whatever they may be,
can eventually add up to an action, and therefore those influences become a 'cause.' Perhaps there can't be any single distinguishing cause psychologically identified, but everything adds up.
Take a person that gives in to road rage and pulls a gun on the other driver involved. Did that
one incident make him do that? Probably not, it may have been the 15 other drivers that cut him off that morning, maybe he just got fired, maybe etc.... Those are all events, or 'things', that
influenced his irrational behaviour. What I am suggesting is that playing a game in which a person acts out violence could also be one of those influences, and seems likely to me given that since such a game invariably triggers aggressive responses. Now of course I agree that a person would have to have psychological troubles to begin with to do something that stupid, or 'crazy' if you will, and I've said that all along. But maybe he wouldn't have been pushed over that fragile limit if he hadn't already gotten used to pulling guns out in a fantasy world. Of course such a piece of the causal equation is immeasurable, I understand that. I'm just trying to get you to see that it is possible.
Of course I believe in the concept of influence. See my previous post on cause. And, by the way, there is plenty of proof in that there have been many studies on causal relationships in violent behavior, and not one has found that violent media is a direct or primary cause for criminally violent behavior. While absence of proof is not necessarily a proof in itself, I believe with the amount of research on the subject done at this point, we can be reasonably assured that there is no, direct causal link from violent mediat to criminally violent behavior.
And again, I think that's where our misunderstanding lies... I never intended to sound like I was asserting that little johnny plays a bad video game and instantly has the urge to shoot somebody.
This is gross overstatement. What evidence, beyond your own, anecdotal variety, can you point to that says the rating systems is failure in helping parents make decisions on which media are appropriate for their children? And are you suggesting that because you've seen children in an R-rated movie that this means most parents are abdicating their responsibilities? Or even a significant number?
Of course I qualified my "gross overstatement" by prefacing it with the phrase "I think." And yes, I stand by that statement concerning parents. I don't mean to insult any parents here or anyone who feels their parents did a good job in raising them.. but I sincerely do feel that a significant number of parents are not doing a good job in raising children to become responsible adults. My feelings are not based on a single event or observation like you are suggesting.
Again, having a negative influence on children and putting society at large in greater danger is a huge leap to make. Huge.
What exactly do you think makes up "society at large"? Is "society at large" a mass of people who were never children once and who were never exposed to harmful influence?
And I think the key word here is
"greater". I agree - greater, not great. I never (thought) I implied that the world was going to implode because of too many video games.
The government-driven effort to censor in any broad manner is doomed to fail, as so many attempts in the past should instruct us. It is impossible for a government to effectively draw the line. How much is too much? How much is too little? Who decides?
I couldn't agree more, but unlike you (apparently) I feel that the world situation is getting worse, and that's the reason I said earlier "I weep for the species."
I've tried to be as clear as possible in this post on where I stand. I don't expect you or anyone else to agree, as I can't fathom your reasoning and you can't fathom mine. but there's no need for insults, or for this particular conversation to continue any longer. I hope that any negative feelings from this thread will not spill over into others.