Today, an old man went on television and complained about video games. Then someone proved him horribly wrong.
I gotta say that reporter nailed it on every point.
Someone give this reporter a medal
I concur. Japan has less crimes while viewing/playing games twice as much that are violent. I don't get those people who deviate and say we need more studies. Surely it isn;t from video games, but how people are raised.
There is a HUGE difference between movies, video games and real violence. I play plenty of violent video games, Kratos ripping off the head of a god, The Last of Us and so on. I watch tons of TV and movies like Dexter and Breaking Bad that are all out brutal. There's something about knowing that it isn't real that makes it ok for you to take in this kind of violence. Recently a friend of mine commented on a video on facebook so it showed up in my feed. I watched it and instantly regret it. It was some sort of gang beheading and it was REAL. I watched some woman have her head removed on video and it made me physically sick to my stomach. I couldn't sleep that night. All of the violence I see day to day in video games and movies don't prepare me for real violence. The two are completely different. Just because I can rip someone's head off in a game, doesn't mean I would ever do it in real life or even "fantasise" about it.
I agree that the reporter had great counter arguments. I now see why the rise of more and more atheist in USA is partially to blame on the church for making themselves look bad. "God knows violence because Jesus was nailed to a cross." Really? Of coarse he does, there were wars just to spread his name! If anything violent videogames help people relieve stress especially games like GTA. Also paying for sex - I don't do it, but hey if prostitution lowers rape cases I am all for it!
He insist that video games be taxed like cigarettes because they're bad for you?! STFU!
a Fox reporter actually talking sense and solid facts?! WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO?!
No factual arguments to defend your point? Hide behind God. Lol. What is the US coming to... He calls games "murder simulators" but stands behind guns, telling us proudly that he got his first gun from his father at age nine. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that if games are "murder simulators" the next step in the equation of killing someone would naturally be to grab a gun. Then he gets facts shoved up his face that completely negate his theory yet he's too stubborn to change his mind. I bet he's able to shoehorn God into it somehow so he can hang on to his ignorance. God understands violence, he says. He is against simulating the death of person but all for actually killing someone?
That was awesome, kinda want to see the topic that came after that about whether it should be illegal to pay for sex. I never thought about the Japan comparison and they've got tons of crazy stuff out there. @Pixel_Enemy That's so true, we all think we're somewhat desensitized to violence till we watch something like 2 guys 1 hammer or any real snuff file. It's grotesque. Seeing REAL LIFE extinguished in brutal ways plays a huge effect on the human psyche.
Pixel_Enemy Very Well Said! Also for those who don't know John Stossel does alot of great work analyzing how screwed up our politics are and exposing government waste.
In all fairness, Stossel is about as much a Fox News Reporter as a cat is a whale. He is agnostic and shockingly liberal. In fact, when he came out as agnostic, he was afraid he'd lose his job. So this is a rare thing to see on Fox News, because Stossel is a rare reporter for that show.
Stossel is not even close to being liberal. He's a libertarian, meaning he believes government should play a miniscule part in our lives. No Regulations. Thats far from being a liberal
The only thing that studies have proven is that losing to your friends on a multiplayer race of Mario Kart can make you feel a bit more aggressive than ripping heads and torsos in single player God War 3 for 3 hours. Violent imagery,has almost no affect on peoples levels of aggressiveness, but competitive gameplay can make peoples aggressiveness levels spike, even if it's just for a small amount of time (minutes) after they put their controllers down.
"I got a gun when I was 9 years old but videogames? That kills people!" - 'MURICA! You know what else Japan doesn't have? http://img.gawkerassets.com... Nothing against whatever each one chooses to believe, but trying and argue what's best for everyone else based on it? Way to go you old fart.
Stossel has been reporting on videogames since the NES. He owned/owns an NES and when he did his report on it, he said that he and his wife sometimes stay up to play it. That was over 20 years ago...
he doesnt even deserve a medal...that man deserves a early access to a free x1,ps4 and free violent games and cookies...cant forget the cookies...lol
I'm scared now.... something's wrong. Media defending videogames?!
@jokesonyou I'm one of the agrees for your post. I know I may not agree with some of your views when it comes to gaming, but this I do. Stossel has done great work in exposing rampant, needless government spending and how both sides of political lines are doing just that. But I guess disagrees here, are based on your name and/or reputation, than your actual posts.
John Stossel is awesome. It's not just his views on Videogames that is dead on, I also find his views on many other subjects to be correct. He is more of a libertarian than conservative. But the truth is, you can't find the truth exclusively in the Liberal camp, or the conservative camp, or in any camp. They all have a piece of the puzzle correct in my opinion. In any case, I don't dismiss any group off hand the way so many of you trendy people do. Fox news is no worse than MSN or any other network. They all have shown degrees of bias.
Yes he did good, but when the guy said 'me and my friends grew up owning guns and we did not go out shooting people', the reporter should have replied with 'well me and my friends grew up playing video games and we didn't go out killing people, does that make your argument against games pointless?'
I love Stossel. Fox still has a lot of libertarian reporters. But my favorite two are Napalitano (sp?) and Stossell.
Less Government more Freedoms
All I have to say is, that dudes moustache is killer.
He's not what he used to be when he was on 20/20. But he is far better than anyone else on Fox. BTW do any of you remember when that wrestler slapped him in the ears and screwed up his hearing. I was really young and couldn't believe it was happening. 20/20 was my favorite show as a child.
And how! This was surprising to say the least. I mean, a news correspondent on FOX using actual statistics with reinforced knowledge to debate and defend pop culture and doing so very well was the last thing I ever thought would happen. John Stossel hit the nail on the head.
Stossel showed him what's WHAT!! :)
The only reason they'd defend it is to join in on making money off it.
here's the video for those that like myself could't see it on the article http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Awesome, thanks for posting the YT link. +1
This is coming from Fox!? o_o Man, that's crazy lol. Good on this reporter though, he was using actual facts to counter these arguments. Franklin didn't give any definitive proof as to why he believes what he believes. He was basically saying "Oh it looks bad, so it must be bad."
"This is coming from Fox!?" The first comment didn't jump on pointing this out? Perhaps that trite gotcha is starting to wear thin. We're talking about Stossel here so this isn't really surprising (regardless of what news corp. gives him his paycheck).
I tend to avoid Fox like the plague, but he certainly seems to lend some good reporting to them no doubt. Just surprised is all, hadn't heard of him before now.
"I tend to avoid Fox like the plague..." You'll have to pardon my choice of words here: that sort of comes off as closeting yourself from dissenting opinions (unless you view a conservative-based news outlet elsewhere). Diving into the politically pluralistic nature of today's news (in US at least) can breed the best results of hearing every angle of an argument and filtering them to see where your decision lies in certain cases. I may question why Lawrence 'O Donnell is still working in political analysis, but that doesn't mean I'll completely shun him with the risk of missing an interesting point of view on a subject.
Coolbeans, I'm very much of the ilk that believes that News needs to get back to being neutral...just report the facts. Any time there is an editorial, both sides should get an equal chance to present their viewpoints without being shouted over or demeaned. Unfortunately, ratings seems to be the focus for the news nowadays...so that means sensationalism and bias in most cases. Oh, and 24 hour news channels really need to go as well...so much filler and repetition, it leads to bad habits and the reporting of nothing in order to fill dead air. Conservative? Liberal? No, it should simply be news.
I certainly share in your annoyance with what news channels have brought themselves to, but the notion news were neutral (depending on how far back we're going) isn't necessarily true. And it's not really possible in today's world. The very action of a news team deciding to choose which topics to present, even in the most sedate fashion, or ignore during their hour-long+ narrative for consistency purposes is fundamentally biased. On top of that, you have to consider how much of the raw facts are slimmed down or changed because of how said host presents the questions/info or when that news team tries to discover the WHY behind this or that action. The purpose of my second comment wasn't there to combat the idea that 'news should just be unfiltered data.' But since that notion is not really feasible in today's world, acquiring as many angles of the argument as possible lends to having the greatest results, rather than sheltering yourself from X news channels b/c they've been called "biased" a lot in your lifetime (from the internet or elsewhere). In Fox News' case, hardly anyone has a beef with Stossel or Napolitano, yet I'm sure there's other cases like Snookies where they're unknown just for being on "that channel."
@Coolbeans, When I first saw your post I was like, "Whoa how on earth did this guy manage to get so many bubbles?" Then I read your posts and I thought, "Oh, that's why." Thanks for bringing n4g that much more intelligence and level-headedness.
Coolbeans i see your a moderator and you'll probably screw me for this, but please, you are obviously trying to push your pro right-wing agenda and dennett is absolutely right! You're not fooling me, and what is the Leapist another account of yours?, cuz if anybody spewed intelligence it was dennett not you. So prove me right and ban me for the couple of days
"Coolbeans i see your a moderator and you'll probably screw me for this..." Not necessarily, but providing such a boring opening that suggests since I'm a mod I'll now 'screw' anyone who disagrees with me already diminishes my enthusiasm for the point(s) you're going to bring up and my respect towards you. "but please, you are obviously trying to push your pro right-wing agenda and dennett is absolutely right!" By living in the real world of what the news is today and suggest extrapolating all angles of an argument? I never suggested dennet's idealized view is wrong, just enlightening him on how bias is more prevalent than his comment suggests. "and what is the Leapist another account of yours?" No. Leap suggests I'm not worthy of my bubble count from my first comment so why would I state that? "cuz if anybody spewed intelligence it was dennett not you." Why funnel it down to "best display of intelligence" to begin with? I just wanted to provide my own rationality regarding this subject in hopes of having a good conversation.
"Not necessarily, but providing such a boring opening that suggests since I'm a mod I'll now 'screw' anyone who disagrees with me already diminishes my enthusiasm for the point(s) you're going to bring up and my respect towards you." Isnt that cute? you think i care about your respect or enthusiam. But my comment enthused you enough to respond back, funny, eh? But the statement still stands, i dont trust pissing off a mod, sorry that "bores" you. And lets not talk about "respect" on a site where there is none "By living in the real world of what the news is today and suggest extrapolating all angles of an argument? I never suggested dennet's idealized view is wrong, just enlightening him on how bias is more prevalent than his comment suggests." The only blatantly biased networks on cable/TV are FoxNews & MSNBC, and both are equally biased. What, you're gonna tell me that CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are liberally biased? If you think that, than the biased one is you. They try and present the most centrist/fair view they can. They always have both sides on to debate the issues and if you see that as "biased" then thats your biased problem. I mean what are they supposed to do to be more fair? just have the rightwing smack down the leftwing everytime? then maybe you wouldnt think its so biased? I will give you this much, you did try and present yourself in a respectful matter and for that i'll give you some credit. But this is what happens when people give their opinions (especially on politics). You know what they say about opinions, they are like @$$holes, "everybody got em, but nobody likes em". Unless they are on a hot girl, then i love em, lol! and p.s. i brung up "intelligence" because the Leapist did Now ban away my mod ;-) (im just kidding by the way)
"Isnt that cute? you think i care about your respect or enthusiam. But my comment enthused you enough to respond back, funny, eh? But the statement still stands, i dont trust pissing off a mod, sorry that "bores" you. And lets not talk about "respect" on a site where there is none" Keyword from last post: diminish. I never said I lost ALL my enthusiasm to respond back, only bluntly stating how I felt about that opener to the rest of your response. And 'the statement' shouldn't really stand since we've never had any previous interaction before (from what I remember). Why not individually assess my reaction(s) instead of unfairly grouping me? Personally, I enjoy seeing new faces (to me) respond to this sort of stuff; whether pulling soft or hard punches, it's great as long as it stays within n4g's commenting guidelines. "The only blatantly biased networks on cable/TV are FoxNews & MSNBC, and both are equally biased. What, you're gonna tell me that CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are liberally biased? If you think that, than the biased one is you." Your first assessment of Fox/NBC is uninformed. http://www.forbes.com/sites... http://www.usnews.com/opini... Generalizing most forms of news media (print, those other channels, etc.) as--at least--liberal-leaning in their views/news presented/etc. is practically common knowledge at this point. From what I've seen of those other 3 channels: CNN: a bit strange at some points. Leans left but has people like Lou Dobbs too ABC: probably the best CBS: I can't remember watching that for a long time. :( Not trying to avoid that channel "like the plague," just rarely come to mind to go there. And yes, I can agree that I'm biased...like everyone else. "and p.s. i brung up "intelligence" because the Leapist did" Ah I see. That didn't even cross my mind in my first reply to you. :/
John Stossel is a long time libertarian which is very different than a republican. This does not surprise me at all. I have always been a fan of his.
libertarians should go all out and make a party, not huff and buff then melt into the republican party after they get tired.
They've had their own party for over 40 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
People need to wise the $*#@ up about these things. Saying every Fox person is bad is like saying every song in a certain genre is automatically crap. Stossel is a muthafuggin' gangsta libertarian and has been calling out BS within both the Democrat and Republican strongholds for years now. He doesn't give a damn what political party you identify with, he'll attack idiots regardless. I mean, he's not even close to being a conservative... he wants ALL drugs legalized (including crack/heroin/meth/etc.), wants legalized prostitution, isn't religious, etc. He just really hates stupid big-government overreach and as a result gets painted as conservative a lot even though he isn't at all.
LOL AT MICROSOFT'S STOCKS @ 3:52
guy starts talking about God and Jesus within the first 30 seconds. I'm glad I live in Canada and not the US. Christ. ...woops
Is there some reason you find the concept of a diety to be offensive?
no, not offensive. But if some old guy went on TV and started saying we must do this and that because Zeus wants it, I'd think it's pretty silly. I mean what was even the point of talking about god? "John.... God understands violence." Yeah ok. But where are you going with this. How is this pertinent? Is this supposed to be some kind of obscure argument?
God, whether you believe in one or not, is an integral part in many people's lives. The reporter chose a well known minister to interview, of course he's going to talk about God. "I mean what was even the point of talking about god?" Really? Religion and morality go hand in hand. Imho, some games out there lack morality. They're violent just because they can be. There's a reason we don't let children play some games. Almost 90% of the world population believe in some sort of God, so I'd say it's somewhat relevant when talking about morality in video games that some people bring up God.
I find it offensive. It's pure human hubris to believe that we understand the heavens, or the will of beings that could have created the universe itself. Churches around the world largely do nothing but teach people that these dieties they claim to understand, or that they claim to have communicated with, want to be *feared*. That doesn't sound like the church of a "good" deity, or all-powerful diety, at all, to me. Organized Religion is nothing more than a gang of people claiming to understand the universe better than other people, and using that claim as an excuse to commit evils which we all KNOW to be evil -- due to the fact that that knowledge is *ingrained* in us, either by the evolved logic of group survival, or by a diety which no church can lay claim to -- possibly because being worshipped by a bunch of insects is not really desirable or interesting at all. It'd take some real ridiculous, self-important humans to think otherwise. If you are a church-goer, you should not care about dieties. You should care about *values*, and helping other people, and the earth... and not for yourself, or your own journey to some "heaven" which another human, no more understanding of the universe than you, made up for the sake of earthly power.
@Testfire: Yes, there is: http://www.youtube.com/watc... OT: I can't wait for these old baby-boomer's to finally die off, so this country can stop claiming that our founding fathers were christian. Thomas Jefferson QUOTE: "I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth." Jefferson again "Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus." More Jefferson "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill." For more quote's from our founding father's on the topic of the malevolence of the Judeo-Christian deity known as Yahweh, please read this: http://www.ecis.com/~alizar... Also here is a good quote from Richard Dawkins on Yahweh (the God that Jesus claims to represent, yet the writters of the Bible had Jesus break EVERY single law of the God that he supposedly represents (Yahweh): “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
do you mean deity? i just thought it would be weird if people found diets funny.
@Tesfire If he is bringing up God, then why doesn't he talk about what God would think about GUNS??? I just can't imagine that God would endorse a tool that is made with the intention to kill his creation. Let me tell you I have extensive knowledge when it comes to people who mention God in their arguments; I have't seen ONE that wasn't hiding something behind the word "GOD".
U just made me ashamed to be Canadian with that comment. Just because people believe in god does NOT make them any less a person. Don't be ignorant.
Respect people and their beliefs, even if you don't agree with them. Simple as that.
I can respect the people and what they "choose" to believe but I do NOT have to respect their beliefs. Hitler believed his race to be the superior one should I respect his belief?
Weird, I thought the US was founded on religious principles. Odd that they choose to talk about God and Jesus, eh? Pfft. Oh, you religious-intolerant folk. One day that blood pressure'll simmer down. ;)
You know who else was borderline religious intolerant? Our forefathers. Please don't start going there with the religious intolerant, persecuted christian crap. It's a fact that most of the worlds intolerance stem from a religious belief. Dont give it if ya cant take it!
Please do carry on to further perpetuate the never ending cycle of hatred and intolerance. I'll continue to watch you silly people from a distance. No one's "giving" or "taking" anything here. lol
So no churches up in canada there? If you looked at how some of the more secular countries have done since becoming more secular and you'll find they've mostly turned into dumps where once they used to be nice to visit *coughs holland*.
There are lots of churches in Canada and people do go to mass. Don't make me judo throw you
Scandinavia says hello. Or maybe we are also doing bad compared to the glorious US? You definitely beat us in obesity, school shootings, and pollution. Also, we are much worse than the US at starting wars. Must be our secular ways that make us so inferior to you. Funny thing is that it's much easier to find third world countries, or countries at war, where religion is part of politics than it is to find one that is secular.
@InMyOpinion How those muslim riots working out for ya? Ain't multiculturalism fun? ^^ Don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with the problems the US has than put up with people that want to kill you if you don't want islam shoved down your throat.
Wow. Can't debate if you dont have information. One guy was informed, the other guy was not. And this kids, is why you study!!
no no you don't understand. God understands violence, can't you see?
Someone has to have a picture of God doing a face palm for all these guys using The Bible to judge people when it clearly states that you're not in a possition to judge
How about we tax stupidity instead?