Aren't you supposed to to be dying? When are you going to fuck off permanently? And more :http://www.reaxxion.com/3720/totalbiscuit-is-sent-death-wish-by-anti-gamergate-for-promoting-charity

Whenever there are a discussion between two groups, the subgenius is there to help you

I always find it helpful to meditate over this holy icon. Just swap the tow sides with whichever groups who are bickering.

got that in a bigger size?

I think the second goal would be keeping artistic freedom, allowing games to be released regardless of content and let the customers decide the worh of a game.

Tell that to people who use sizes larger than 35mm(aka 36X24mm to be precise).............and ask them how they buy accessories for them while you're at it............

I am not a super scientist. I never claimed to be. I have a masters of engineering in computer engineering and computer science. Which means I have training on how to find and evaluate research that I want to build upon. I would not go looking in a journal dedicated to security to find recent articles on compression. I would prefer to find papers that have been cited by others, and I would look in top tier journals. I would want cooberation of the research, otherwise I would first try to reproduce it as part of my research. All of this is considered when you apply to a funding body for a research grant.

The article you are so stuck on has none of this. In terms of citations it has nothing. In CS circles, that would be extremely suggestive that something was flawed with the research.

Furthermore, the decline in crime in the US since the early 1990s has its roots in the fact that 1 in 30 us residents are currently in the corrections system, and unwanted pregnancy is dramatically down due to abortion and access to better means of birth control. Which has a confounding effect on correlational studies of the crime rate over time. That isn't even getting into generic statistics being a poor thing to attempt to correlate to.

Here, let me post what I originally said. Read it. Are you sure you understand it? I specifically acknowledged the type of studies you are talking about. I even mention that crap article published in a second tier non psychology journal before you even trotted it out as proof for your point. If you'd bother to look at the research behind the APAs statement on media and violence, you would see that there is a vast body of research that shows that causal link. I specifically say the effect of violent media on individuals long term (not populations, individuals) is unknown. I still say its unkown, despite the fact you linked to a study that showed it does have an impact.

The only reason I continued to reply to you is because I want others who are capable of grasping it to realize the problems with seizing on one or two articles as proof of something. I mentioned it earlier, but here is a study that shows chocolate helps you lose weight no matter what. [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/health-17511011[/url]. You can find this article mentioned hundreds of times. Unfortunately, the press did not have the training to assess the validity of the research. I looked at the journal it was published in, and my opinion was to hold off eating chocolate until it had been reproduced. It never was, because the paper was rightly completely ignored by the medical research community. It wasn't worth their time to even acknowledge it.

Then, just a few weeks ago, the author of the study wrote this io9 article. http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800.

In this instance it was deliberate. Scientists are human, and can make mistakes. They can also be so certain of their position they are blind to the flaws in their methodology. This is why it is hard to get papers published in good journals. There is rigorous review, where the reviewers will demand answers or clarification added to the paper before they publish it. It is also why you don't look at a single study when forming an opinion.

On the other side of your argument is the opinion of the APA. That resolution they are reviewing isn't going to change very much, if at all. It also will not affect previous resolutions on violence in the media in general.

It's funny you attack my reading comprehension. I'm not the one who blindly cited the study I was critical as proof to me of my ignorance. Who doesn't understand the basic tools when evaluating unfamiliar research. Who didn't understand that 275 members of the APA was a vast minority. Who gave links providing evidence opposite of their own argument. That thought the APAs statements on violence after viewing media was based on a single study. Who was incapable of understanding that the study they cited did not measure what the article headline claimed it did by the co-author's own words. Who doesn't understand the reason why googling for sensationalized newspaper articles and linking them as evidence of anything is a really disingenuous way to argue.

The APAs professional finding is that there is a link, and you keep pointing to a correlational study by the chair of a small private school in florida I'd never heard of, published in a second tier journal for an unrelated field as concrete proof the APA opinion is wrong.

Its funny, you say I haven't proved anything. My position, that a long term real life causal link between video games and violence had not been determined. You provided research for, and you acknowledged research against the real life link. By demonstrating that there was some contention (no matter if the contention is real or not), you proved me right. The issue has not been determined and is (perhaps) unsettled.

The short term causal link between observing violence and behaving more aggressively really isn't up for debate. Especially in children. That's settled, and if you want to argue with someone about it, take it up with the APA.

Edit:
I also forgot the part where you said the author of that paper sent it backwards in time from 2014 to trigger a scientific review in 2013.

On the subject of boycotts, censorship, and power. The person calling for the boycott, by themselves has no power. Everyone is free to ignore a boycott. What the person calling for the boycott is doing is posing the question to individuals (and legal entitites I suppose): Do you want to support this regime/company/artist/bus company/polluter/game knowing x about it.

Can they, by themselves force others to decide not to support a product? No, they either have to make an appeal to morality or reason. Consumers don't often know everything about the products they purchase. Retailers often do not know everything about the products they stock. When a consumer boycotts something, they are simply doing what they would have done in the first place had they been fully informed about the product.

When a corporation boycotts something they are making a carefully balanced decision about their brand. Young women are a much larger and more important demographic to most retailers than young men. You can assume then, that most retailers are going to be sensitive to women's issues. Target made a financial choice to look good to their favored demographic in Australia, by taking a stance on an issue of morality.

The power to change the product rests with the owner in a boycott. Only the government, the sole organization in most countries, has the authority to truly use force to make that change. All the group calling for the boycott can do is give information that guide individual decisions.

Take two's response was extremely entitled to me. That they had some kind of god given right to be on australian retailer's shelves because of "free society". That they had a right to affect the perception of carefully crafted brands by releasing a controversial product. That it somehow goes against a free society to not be associated with a product because its morally outrageous. Freedom of association is a counterpart to freedom of speech. Say what you want, but I don't have to have anything to do with it.

Did the organizer of these boycotts do anything other than publicize this fact and state the moral and ethical implications as they saw them? Did rockstar have equal (probably greater) opportunity to explain why it made the game the way it did? In the end, wasn't the actual boycott enforced as the result of individual choices? Aren't others entitled to make their choices without regard to your wishes so long as they don't violate your legally guaranteed rights?

So this is my explanation as to why a boycott is not in and of itself censorship, from the old school enemy of gamers, the moralizing christian.

What a pompous ass you are...
Now you know better than the ACLU what constitutes censorship when a couple days ago you were looking up the definition online!
I go with the ACLU definition and this includes public pressure groups as censors

As to social research, you really are completely clueless...
You are so completely ignorant...
You claim these studies of long-time violence aren't addressing abortion, contraception and incarceration? Of course they do. They do so in their methodology. They wouldn't be published if they didn't address background socio-economic conditions. How vain are you? As I explained earlier about one study which compared the release dates of the big violent video games such as Call of Duty and GTA to violence statistics. They are looking for spikes in the data in order to eliminate any background effects. So unless you are claiming that there just happens to be some breakthrough in abortion rights, contraception or criminal justice which occurs simultaneously with the release of all video games in the study, then they have been accounted for.

It just shows how naive you are about social science methodology. Its pretty clear you keep talking out of your behind again. Each and every one of the studies talking about long-term effects addresses those issues you mention through their methodology. No, they don't mention abortion, birth control or incarceration rates by name, but they don't have to. If you knew a damn thing about the social sciences and social science methodology, you'd know that.

But more stupidity from you...Claiming over 200 signatures is meaningless in a petition to the APA. You really expect them to have all 80,000 signatures of every scientist on the planet? Who's being ridiculous here...you just make yourself look like such a fool. Name one letter to any board of any size that has over 10,000 signatures attached...(chirp) Because that never happens.

I cited a number of good studies by respected psychologists. YOU show your complete and total ignorance of the subject by making up stories to attack any study which disagrees with YOUR view of the world. Go back to la-la-land.

I'm sorry, but no one is going to believe a pompous computer engineer when it comes to psychological studies. Especially one who claims looking at any individual study is worthless. No, I get it. LISTEN AND BELIEVE COMPUTER ENGINEERS, you know, because they know everything because, um...computers and stuff....

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Ad hominem attacks prove nothing but they are fun though.

Heathen!
Sacred Choa all the way!
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#/media/File:Sacred-Chao.svg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discordianism#/media/File:Sacred-Chao.svg[/url]
Hail Eris! ;-D

...As long as they don't TALK about their issues with a game with each other and come to any kind of consensus agreement over anything objectionable that's not the quality of the graphics or gameplay because that's a boycott and therefore censorship, apparently...

Seriously, you are only here to attack Gamergaters. Seriously, what a troll YOU are. I notice how you didn't choose to point out the attacks of the person I responded to. How that person seems to claim that people in this thread are too dumb to think for themselves. That we need his guidance to properly understand what appears in the media. How we are too dumb to make our own decisions about the validity of these studies; that we are not scientifically trained or capable of reading a study ourselves.

No, we are just supposed to believe his conclusions. You aren't pointing out where Keyvin are calling us "stupid". Nope, only attack the GGers...

Yes, I called you a troll. Go ahead call it out as an ad hominem attack, yet notice how I backed it up. Notice how I showed how you are picking on only one particular side. Because by showing that, it demonstrates you are a troll.

Anyone can go back through this discussion and see how you are a partisan...

just pointing out that in one single post you did not only manage to attack a person instead of the argument once or twice, but over 10 times... but yes, I am the troll.

edit - I read through Keyvin's post that you responded to, and I can not see what you are referencing to? I would like to taunt him also, but he is making it more difficult for me.... the closest I get is his response to where he addresses you making comments about his reading comprehension.

...as he did in the post that you've replying to, too!
*springs out, devours Billy Goat Gruff, returns to home under bridge*