15 Responses to “Ok this is just beat up on the rhetorical styles day…”

1. snaars Says:
   March 4th, 2005 at 7:09 pm

   Your analysis is good. In particular I was struck by the fact that the interviewee blatantly misconstrued the first question. I was a little confused by this part of your post though. [quote:3e91a0378c]3) Next he suggests that the heads of health care organizations have access to “hundreds” (source unknown) of studies that the gaming corporations do not in fact have access to. My first question is what kind of appeal to authority goes to the heads of health care organizations, and are there in fact any other kinds of motives behind the heads of health care organization’s testimonies? Wouldn’t it be concievable that if the HoHCO could prove in fact that these individuals don’t suffer from mental instability but programming outside of the HoHCO’s control that the HoHCO could in effect not have to cover damages accrued by such actions?[/quote:3e91a0378c] I don’t think he was claiming that game corporations don’t have access to the studies – I think he was claiming that the studies undermined the game co’s stance that violence on screen does not affect kids. In fact the appeal to authority here could be legitimate, depending on who these HoHCO’s are and the quality of the evidence. Otherwise I think you’re right – this is pure rhetoric. Unsurprising though, since that’s what sways most folks.

2. mayfly Says:
   March 4th, 2005 at 8:21 pm

   I’m kidding… 😉

3. wduluoz Says:
   March 5th, 2005 at 4:37 pm

   But you didnt face the question . . . can gratuitous sex and violence change the recipient’s behaviour? —Yes If it does, who is responsible? —I blame the entertainment industry. Heil Bush.

4. arglor Says:
   March 5th, 2005 at 5:31 pm

   Response to snaars… I disagree completely. First off, As far as i know there is no “conclusive” evidence one way or another behind violent media causing violent action. Ergo the topic is fairly controversial and so any appeal to an expert is automatically a falacious appeal. (I.E. You appeal to an expert in neural network technology that artificial intellegence is possible in 10 years. This is obviously controversial in their field and therefore any appeals for such a statement become fallacious.) What people don’t understand is that there are too many simultaneous occurences to narrow it down to simply one cause. As mentioned in a documentary (Bowling for Columbine) i watched not to long ago that confronted violence in our society and specifically our youth behind the columbine crisis. The conclusion i recieved from the film was that such a situation has far too many things circulating to lay blame on one individual. –Where were the parents? –Why were the children acting this way? –What were the social pressures on the children? —–i.e. Did living in a town where Lochheed has one of their largest arms factory that created warheads and missiles used in our milatary moves across the ocean. —–i.e. Was there anything behind the fact that the school shooting occured on the same day as the largest one-day bombing by the U.S. in the Kosovo War. –If violent media plays a role, in specifically “training” our children on the most efficient ways to make their violent imaginations become reality, what are the constraints around the situation at hand. What am I getting at? I’m just saying that in a society where we claim to have freedom of speech i have to side on the video game designers on this issue. You wouldn’t punish a gun manufacturer for creating a weapon used in a school shooting, (which has been upheld in the court of law for an upteenth time) so why would you hold a video game manufacturer responsible for their “techniques of mayhem” being used in real life? I think, if what he said about the best buy case is accurate, that his actions against best buy for not enforcing the age requirment for games as a damn good move. We need more enforcement on distributing agents, not the creative force behind the media. Artists must be left free to create their works as they see fit and we just need to regulate our own perceptions of it.

5. snaars Says:
   March 5th, 2005 at 10:24 pm

   You argue very persuasively … against a straw man! You said that the lawyer was claiming that health care organizations had access to hundreds of studies that the gaming industry did not have access to. I was just explaining that I don’t think the lawyer said that. The lawyer’s statement is: [quote:d32c6e1b04]The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are “hundreds” of studies that prove the link. All the video game industry has are studies paid for by them, which are geared to find the opposite result.[/quote:d32c6e1b04] When the lawyer says that the only studies the gaming industry “has” are the ones they paid for themselves, what he means is that the only studies that do not indicate a correlation between violent video games and violent behavior are ones the video gaming industry paid for – as opposed to “hundreds” of studies that do indicate such a correlation. In other words, the statement was not about access, it was about which studies seem to support which side of the issue. At least, that is what I consider to be the natural interpretation. I could of course be wrong as that has been known to happen on occasion. 😀 But as long as I am posting, I will make a few more comments. You questioned whether the HoHCO’s testimony could be biased: [quote:d32c6e1b04]Wouldn’t it be concievable that if the HoHCO could prove in fact that these individuals don’t suffer from mental instability but programming outside of the HoHCO’s control that the HoHCO could in effect not have to cover damages accrued by such actions?[/quote:d32c6e1b04]Are we talking about insurance companies and/or HMOs, or are we talking about actual health care providers? If it is the former, then you may be on to something. I would be much more suspicious of studies sponsored by video game companies than those conducted by health care providers. It is probably true that no one is an authority or an expert in this area as you say. But even if this is so, that does not mean that the hundreds of studies do not tell us anything. Whether the studies legitimately tell us anything depends on the methodology and reasoning used and the conclusions reached. [quote:d32c6e1b04]What people don’t understand is that there are too many simultaneous occurences to narrow it down to simply one cause.[/quote:d32c6e1b04]There is never a single cause for anything. Nevertheless it seems possible that video games could cause violent behavior. I don’t think anyone is claiming that they are the only cause. [quote:d32c6e1b04]You wouldn’t punish a gun manufacturer for creating a weapon used in a school shooting, (which has been upheld in the court of law for an upteenth time) so why would you hold a video game manufacturer responsible for their “techniques of mayhem” being used in real life?[/quote:d32c6e1b04] Just because you wouldn’t punish someone for something, that doesn’t mean they haven’t done anything wrong. Besides, I’m not sure that the gun issue is relevantly similar. I’ve never heard it argued that guns – in and of themselves – incite people to violence. I’ve only heard it argued that when people get violent and guns are readily available then fatality and serious injury are more likely. This issue is different because we are talking about what makes people violent. I believe the thought is that if these games encourage violence among young people, then this is akin to corruption of minors.

6. arglor Says:
   March 6th, 2005 at 3:13 am

   When i said “i disagree with you completly.” It was a complete falsehood. I agree i completly misrepresented his statement by including access and assuming he meant that each had limited access to studies. BUT! This has no relevence to the argument i posted above. My second post was solely directed to your statement that, “In fact the appeal to authority here could be legitimate, depending on who these HoHCO’s are and the quality of the evidence.” That is what i disagree completly with. I guess there is some ambiguity at what in fact the six health care organizations are. I was assuming they were HMO’s which might be incorrect. In fact a little research shows that the testimonies could have come from such prestigious organizations like the APA (American Psychological Association) and the AMA, AAP, etc. If these are the vaguely mentioned “Health care organizations” then i applaud the appeal to authority, and rail against his lack of including the authority in his answer. You know what is funny about this whole argument, i just realized this. It operates like a binary argument but i think it is far more complex. Let me attempt to lay out what I understand the argument to be. P1 Violent media, i.e. Video Games, influence the development of children which leads to real life violence. P2 If something influences the development of children and leads them to real life violence, then the people creating that object should share the blame/punishment for the real life violence created. P3 Violent media, i.e. Video Games, should share the blame/punishment for real life violence. If this is the case doesn’t premise 2 disturb you in the slightest? (BTW i might be misrepresenting the argument and feel free to clarify it if you can but i think this gets to what he is describing) My point is that it is not a binary system. Take pornography as a prime example. Pornography in our society has a stigma. We have a series of laws put in place to make sure that pornography doesn’t get into the hands of children. It is also believed that pornography leads to sexually deviant behaviour*(specifically in children). It has been argued that pornography is protected under the right of free speech. Why is it that the argument against pornography has been abandoned, and yet people do not draw the similarities to video games? -I think the problem is they see video games being marketed to children when their label shows otherwise. This is a flaw in marketing. I remember seeing a marketing strategist remark that she was proud that this study proved that the children knew ronald mcdonald but didn’t know who Bush was. (I think this was either in SuperSize Me or it was in Corporation, one or the other documentary.) My point is that the goal of marketing is getting their product’s name out into the world. They often approach it unethically. but i digress- Why are the sides divided like this: -Games hurt children so punish the writers of the game. -Games don’t hurt children. This is rediculous and absurd. There is a third option, and a fourth and a fifth. The third option is whether or not video games hurt children, there is a legal rating system in effect and it should operate similarly to the smoking age regulations and the drinking age regulations. Why do we argue so? And why is he (attorney) so focused on making the creators of an artistic expression pay for the crime of another. If i murder you, can i blame the capitalist system for making the situation i live in? Is this a viable defense?

7. snaars Says:
   March 6th, 2005 at 6:45 am

   Okay, since it appears that I have decided to argue the pro-censorship side … 🙄 … I went back and read the original interview that sparked your first post. It doesn’t say anything about punishing video game writers or creators. He (Jack Thompson) seems to be advocating better enforcement of not allowing distributors to sell to minors, and maybe not allowing the games to be marketed to them either. We do the same thing for pornography, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, and anything else that is harmful. The philosophy of our culture seems to be that a bit of paternalism is okay. Especially if it prevents your kid from killing my kid. No, your ‘capitalist situation’ is not a defense for murdering me! 😮 I don’t think I would accept [i:1305cee9f2]any[/i:1305cee9f2] defense in the world for that. But if you were brainwashed for hours a day and it caused a physical change in your brain that made it more likely that you would kill someone, that might be a defense for killing someone. I don’t know why I am arguing this except that now that I have started I can’t stop.

8. arglor Says:
   March 6th, 2005 at 3:03 pm

   [quote:e2072ca838=”snaars”]He (Jack Thompson) seems to be advocating better enforcement of not allowing distributors to sell to minors, and maybe not allowing the games to be marketed to them either. [/quote:e2072ca838] You are INCORRECT SIR! heh. Sorry but he has been going after both producers and distributors of what he labels violent video games. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorney)]Here is a wikipedia article [/url]about him. This is a quote from the wikipedia article that directly references the discussion we are having about Heads of the Health Care Organizations. [quote:e2072ca838=”wikipedia”]In one of a series of interviews by CBS, he compared Doug Lowenstein of the Entertainment Software Alliance to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, although the response has since been edited [url=http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/editorials/cbs-news-balks-cuts-naziesa-story-034275.php](Kotaku’s article)[/url] ([url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/03/tech/gamecore/main677960.shtml]CBS Article[/url]). In the same interview, he states that “The heads of six major health care organizations testified before Congress that there are “hundreds” of studies that prove the link.”; the testimony in question ([url=http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/jstmtevc.htm]Testimony[/url]) in fact concluded “We in no way mean to imply that entertainment violence is the sole, or even necessarily the most important factor contributing to youth aggression, anti-social attitudes, and violence. Family breakdown, peer influences, the availability of weapons, and numerous other factors may all contribute to these problems. Nor are we advocating restrictions on creative activity.”[/quote:e2072ca838] I want a wikipedia article about me. Why does this (insert ad hominem attack here) get an article but I don’t.

9. snaars Says:
   March 6th, 2005 at 6:34 pm

   I was not incorrect because as I said I was referring to the interview and the interview did not contain that information. I don’t know anything about this guy other than that to which you have drawn my attention. Whether or not Thompson called someone a Nazi has no bearing on whether or not vvg’s cause real violence. The issue is vvg’s, not Jack Thompson. Thompson’s fallacies don’t give you a free pass to commit fallacies. The conclusion cited seems well-worded and exactly what I would expect from professionals and scientists. These seem like people who know what they’re doing and they know the tendency of average folks to interpret scientific data inappropriately. The conclusion cautions us not to read too much into the data. The last sentence you cited in particular tells us that these people don’t want to get involved in the politics of this issue. Notice that the conclusion doesn’t say, “We think that viewing violent images and playing interactive participatorially violent video games is in no way whatsoever linked to violent behavior. Anyone who insists otherwise is an old fart.” No, they seem to be saying that the evidence does indicate some sort of link. The data may not be of the sort that allows them to draw any firm conclusion about what kind of link it is, though. It could be that this whole issue comes about as the result of fallacious reasoning, such as confusing cause and effect. Or, as much as you may dislike it some of Thompson’s allegations may be proved correct. As I said before, just because there is more than one cause of violent behavior, that doesn’t mean that vvg’s can’t possibly cause violent behavior. I think I might have just invented the word “participatorially”. 😛

10. arglor Says:
    March 6th, 2005 at 10:44 pm

    Them’s major fighting words your swinging around there friend. What fallacies have i committed in my last post? All i’m saying is that his aim is to hold Video Game Creator’s responsible for inciting violence in the children. My evidence is as listed above, the simple fact that he has targeted rockstar games as a liabel party for the lawsuit. As for the accuracy of your claim being marginalized because of your source of evidence, i do not know and i do not hold it against you. The reason he was interviewed is that he is suing a series of video game creators and distributors because of an act of child violence. Please remember i didn’t draw any relevance between his statement about the Doug and being a Nazi. The part of the quote that i meant was relevant dealt with the Heads of the Healthcare Organizations and Jack’s misinterpreted quote. [quote:2408a149a8=”snaars”]As I said before, just because there is more than one cause of violent behavior, that doesn’t mean that vvg’s can’t possibly cause violent behavior.[/quote:2408a149a8] enough hedge phrases in there? No, but seriously the reason for the hedge phrases is exactly the reason this argument exists. We can’t conclude one way or another at whether VVGs cause violent actions. You keep bringing the argument back to that as though i’m saying VVG can or cannot cause violent actions in children. I think to conclude one way or another is premature at this point. What i think is safe to conclude is that parents and government needs to monitor what children are exposed to. I think our government is doing a shitty job at it also. -=-Irrelevant Digression-=- For instance, i think that children should not be marketed to by corporations and that it should be illegal for any product to be aimed at this section of our society. I have a problem as mentioned above that the advertising industry aims their sights at our young because they see them as “future lifelong customers”. I also support the unplugging of every television till children get around 15 or higher. Why? Because that is the stage of greatest impressionability.(new word, i think) -=-Back on topic-=- So to keep the debate on track. 1) The interview is hosted because he is currently suing video game creators for violent actions caused by a child. 2) I never claimed the nazi statement was relevant, stop putting words in my mouth. 3) you are an idiot *heh joking of course* 4) (Argument 1)Whether or not video games cause violent activity in children is controversial because there are too many different causes that can be referenced for the effect, BUT THAT does not mean that video game *distributors* should be able to market and sell violent video games to children. 5) (Argument 2)Video Game Creators should be able to create what they want when they want, as long as they don’t distribute them to children, because it is an issue of free speach and free speach should be protected no matter the medium it is expressed in. 6) OK and this one concerns me. What exactly does this mean [quote:2408a149a8=”snaars”]I was not incorrect because as I said I was referring to the interview and the interview did not contain that information. I don’t know anything about this guy other than that to which you have drawn my attention. [/quote:2408a149a8] In my above statment i was reacting to this statement: [quote:2408a149a8=”CBS article”]He (Jack Thompson) seems to be advocating better enforcement of not allowing distributors to sell to minors, and maybe not allowing the games to be marketed to them either. [/quote:2408a149a8] Which demonstrates that you believe his ultimate aim is simply the strengthening of laws limiting the sale of video games, but i have evidence contrary. The evidence is the exact reason this interview was created. Jack Thompson is in fact suing video game creators for the actions of children after (supposedly) playing the video games. What jack wants from the individuals involved is that The video game companies should be restricted from creating violent video games, and the violent video game companies that have already created violent video games should be held responsible for the violence they (supposedly) incite in children. So whether or not you had access to the information, you do now.

11. snaars Says:
    March 7th, 2005 at 4:26 am

    If anyone wanted to see the Junior Philosopher’s equivalent of a back-alley brawl, this is it. 😈 (I don’t mean ‘junior’ in the pejorative sense, Arglor – I say it because I consider myself an amateur.) Unfortunately for those that want to see more of this spine-tingling mega-match, I think it may be over. I misunderstood your argument Arglor and I think our views are not so disparate as to warrant more pugnastication. (I do seem to be enjoying inventing words today.) I will just respond to your latest post as breifly as possible. About the alleged fallacy – you quoted wikipedia and in the quote it mentions that Jack called someone-or-other Goebells, a famous Nazi. By including this information you in effect said – “Look at this guy who is on a witch-hunt. None of his arguments could possibly be reasonable.” At least that is how I interpreted it. I considered this fallacious because whether or not Jack called someone a Nazi has nothing to do with whether VVGs cause violence. You can’t blame me for thinking this because you were the one that included it in the quote (i.e., I am not putting words in your mouth – you brought it up). When you mention my alleged “hedge phrases” I have no idea what you are talking about. I said what I meant. Please tell me specifically what you mean so that if there is any misunderstanding, I can respond. You asked what I meant when I said that I was correct. I meant that you took my statement out of context. Here it is in the original context: [quote:e1f75472ee=”I”]I went back and read the original interview that sparked your first post. It doesn’t say anything about punishing video game writers or creators. He (Jack Thompson) seems to be advocating better enforcement of not allowing distributors to sell to minors, and maybe not allowing the games to be marketed to them either. We do the same thing for pornography, alcohol, cigarettes, guns, and anything else that is harmful. The philosophy of our culture seems to be that a bit of paternalism is okay. Especially if it prevents your kid from killing my kid.[/quote:e1f75472ee] I never meant to claim that Jack wasn’t going after the makers of VVGs. I meant that there was nothing in the interview indicating that he was doing that. I tried to clarify this before but I guess I didn’t do a good job. Anyway, I consider myself to be correct when I make this statement: There was nothing in the interview that indicated Jack was going after the makers of VVGs. You said I was incorrect, and I wasn’t. Lastly, I will elaborate again on the issue of causes. You keep making statements to the effect that there are so many causes of violence that we don’t know if blame can be put on VVGs. I concur. So there. [quote:e1f75472ee=”Arglor”]You keep bringing the argument back to that as though i’m saying VVG can or cannot cause violent actions in children.[/quote:e1f75472ee] What I thought you were arguing is that it is impossible to know whether VVGs cause violent behavior, because there are so many contributing causes. Please forgive me for this misunderstanding if indeed I misunderstood. I only wish to point out that it [i:e1f75472ee]is possible[/i:e1f75472ee] to have such knowledge in the future. A disease never has only one cause either, but if we can isolate causal factors or a ‘direct’ cause then we can reduce the risk of the disease, or even cure it. That is what I was driving at when[quote:e1f75472ee=”I”]… just because there is more than one cause of violent behavior, that doesn’t mean that vvg’s can’t possibly cause violent behavior.[/quote:e1f75472ee] I hope that helps clear the air a bit. See you in class.

12. arglor Says:
    March 7th, 2005 at 5:36 pm

    don’t worry i didn’t take offense… i’m very much a juniour myself in this situation… about the quote of the wikipedia article, i included that whole section because i was selecting the whole paragraph related to the interview itself. I didn’t want to leave out any information in case you or whoever else did not follow the link. I find it interesting that he did make racial comments and CBS did in fact censor him. It has no bearing on my argument but i did want it to be included in the information i displayed to you. This brings up a good point i want to focus on. in todays post. -=-This is a practice argument, i’m not sure it works-=- It might be possible, i’m not going to conclude whether it is or not, but there is one difference between viruses and human society. We know very little about how the human mind works. We know even less about how societies actually work mechanically speaking. To say that since you can recognize the viral causes you can recognize psychological causes is a flawed analogy. The differences between the two parts are so glaring. A virus operates a certain way and has the added understanding that it is found in a place it is not supposed to be. A violent video game doesn’t have that glaring distinction. A violent video game’s presence doesn’t demonstrate a distinct lack of connectedness to the surroundings it is involved in. My point is that we have seen many healthy human bodies. Viruses tend to stick out because of their shape and their methodology. That is why we are able to cure viruses so well. In fact the more camoflage a virus has the more difficult it is to find. HIV for instance used other viruses to kill the host. It just lowered the immune system and the host would die from another deadly virus. That is why it took so long to diagnose. The problem with humans and art, is that humans create art and it appears that art belongs with humans. Even self-inflicted genocide (human on human murder) appears to be difficult to describe as “not acceptible” or “viral” if you want because there has to be an appeal to something outside of the organism as a whole. A virus invades from the outside. A piece of art is created from within. To say it is bad to create that art, would require an appeal to something outside of the system itself (God, moral law, legal system perhaps). I am the first person to suggest the existence of moral laws in order to better recognize how societies should run efficiently, but i also recognize that such a creation only stands in the case of life and death situations (or torture and suffering). I have problems making such an appeal in the face of a crime that has no real suffering measured. —Remember the suffering was caused by the children murdering an individual. The suffering did not cause from them consuming the video game media. If you want to make it such that the suffering occured because of the consumption of the violent media, then why is the violence sporatic and extended over all of society. I find it interesting that at the same times we have domestic violence, we also have global violence. We invade iraq, oh and our children tend to be violent to each other. Could the violence be a local manifestation of what we do globally?— So we are pretty much done with this argument. As an aside, i think you and me are the only people who care about this thread still.

13. snaars Says:
    March 7th, 2005 at 6:00 pm

    You went from ‘disease’ to ‘virus’, but that’s okay, it doesn’t affect my statement. You don’t have to know anything about viruses in order to identify a cause of disease. The best way I can explain this is by using an example. Suppose we lived sometime in the past before medical science. People start getting some disease. We look at who these people are and notice they all have something in common – I dunno – they’re all sheep herders or something. We notice the sheep are not well either. We come to the conclusion that the disease is [i:46fe85e344]caused[/i:46fe85e344] by coming into contact with the sick sheep. We get all the sick sheep together and drive them over the cliff, and whenever another sheep gets sick we do the same. Soon all the sheep are healthy and so are the sheep herders. It is probably true that our social science is not developed enough to understand why violence is so prevalent. We do not understand these things as well as we understand viruses and other causes of disease. Nevertheless we can identify causes of violence. Like your argument, mine is not well-developed in the details but I think I gave you enough to see which way I am going. I think you’re absolutely right about other people not paying attention but I suppose it is good exercise.

14. arglor Says:
    March 7th, 2005 at 6:25 pm

    i was thinking about this earlier. Remember before violent video games they were saying the same things about violent movies? My question is this, You say that the similarities are there and the data is large. My argument is that the data isn’t nearly as large as people make it out to be, i’m not sure every school shooting even can be tied to violent video games. What are the statistics behind violent crime being attributed to video games. I heard GTA has three murders attributed to it. Mortal Kombat has one attributed to it in Russia, which i believe should also be attributed to alcohol and the poor state of the Russian economy. I mean I do not know. I’m not sure the correlation is even large enough to say there is something to look far. I’d like to know why humans kill each other period, let alone why they choose such creative methods.

15. snaars Says:
    March 7th, 2005 at 7:12 pm

    Where are you getting this? I didn’t say any of those things.