Apex Community Forums - View Single Post

droeblek9 · 19-December-05, 10:35 AM

The bottom line: Obsessive behavior is ultimately the responsibility of the individual who engages in it.
"Because of the massive competition, people can’t stop playing.” Um, no. People don't stop playing because they choose not to (for whatever reason). Competition and video games aren't at fault, individuals are.
You can try to educate people (health and safety guidelines). You can try to legislate behavior (time limits in internet cafes, improvement in air quality in the cafes, etc.). But, if someone really wishes to engage in a particular behavior, then he or she most likely will. Video games aren't responsible for someone killing him or herself; the behavioral patterns/decisions of the individual are.
I think what we keep seeing is the byproduct of one truth: Some people are mentally unstable/generally screwed up. In the eighties, the Flavor Of The Month (FOTM) scapegoat was rock music (remember the lawsuits against, Ozzy, Judas Priest, Rob Halford). Instead of saying, "Wow, this individual was nuts", some people want a scapegoat. In the eighties, the FOTM scapegoat was rock and roll : "Rock and Roll made my kid commit suicide/murder someone". It looks like the new FOTM scaprgoat is video games. This is bogus for many reasons. Two of which:

1) It's an gross oversimplification of the underlying problems. Removing video games will not spontaneously cause individuals to be cured of mental maladies. So, that's not really a viable solution, is it?

2) By displacing responsibility, the actual problems (mental instability, mental disease, personality disorder, etc.) go unnoticed and untreated. Let's say, for instance, that Little Terry is schizophrenic and prone to violent psychotic outbursts. If you take away Little Terry's videogames, have you addressed/solved the problem? If you take away Little Terry's video games, have you taken any steps to ensure Little Terry's safety and the safety of the public? The answer to both of those questions is an emphatic "NO!" So, that's not really a viable solution either.

What is a viable solution? One would be educational in nature: teach people about the dangers associated with behavioral patterns and mental disorders, and teach people how to cope with these in a healthy manner (note: there is no Silver Bullet cure for this, but there is a profound difference between a healthy and an unhealthy approach...most of what we've been seeing in the media is indicative of an unhealthy approach, imo). Why aren't more people taking this approach? IMO, it's because that approach isn't nearly as simple as blaming a scapegoat, it doesn't lend itself to nice little compartmentalized solutions, and it isn't sensational.

19-December-05, 10:35 AM		#2 (permalink)
droeblek9 Warcraft Warrior	The bottom line: Obsessive behavior is ultimately the responsibility of the individual who engages in it. "Because of the massive competition, people can’t stop playing.” Um, no. People don't stop playing because they choose not to (for whatever reason). Competition and video games aren't at fault, individuals are. You can try to educate people (health and safety guidelines). You can try to legislate behavior (time limits in internet cafes, improvement in air quality in the cafes, etc.). But, if someone really wishes to engage in a particular behavior, then he or she most likely will. Video games aren't responsible for someone killing him or herself; the behavioral patterns/decisions of the individual are. I think what we keep seeing is the byproduct of one truth: Some people are mentally unstable/generally screwed up. In the eighties, the Flavor Of The Month (FOTM) scapegoat was rock music (remember the lawsuits against, Ozzy, Judas Priest, Rob Halford). Instead of saying, "Wow, this individual was nuts", some people want a scapegoat. In the eighties, the FOTM scapegoat was rock and roll : "Rock and Roll made my kid commit suicide/murder someone". It looks like the new FOTM scaprgoat is video games. This is bogus for many reasons. Two of which: 1) It's an gross oversimplification of the underlying problems. Removing video games will not spontaneously cause individuals to be cured of mental maladies. So, that's not really a viable solution, is it? 2) By displacing responsibility, the actual problems (mental instability, mental disease, personality disorder, etc.) go unnoticed and untreated. Let's say, for instance, that Little Terry is schizophrenic and prone to violent psychotic outbursts. If you take away Little Terry's videogames, have you addressed/solved the problem? If you take away Little Terry's video games, have you taken any steps to ensure Little Terry's safety and the safety of the public? The answer to both of those questions is an emphatic "*NO!"* So, that's not really a viable solution either. What is a viable solution? One would be educational in nature: teach people about the dangers associated with behavioral patterns and mental disorders, and teach people how to cope with these in a healthy manner (note: there is no Silver Bullet cure for this, but there is a profound difference between a healthy and an unhealthy approach...most of what we've been seeing in the media is indicative of an unhealthy approach, imo). Why aren't more people taking this approach? IMO, it's because that approach isn't nearly as simple as blaming a scapegoat, it doesn't lend itself to nice little compartmentalized solutions, and it isn't sensational.