By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
spemanig said:

It's wild that people are literally confronted with a scientific study, and instead of reasonably taking it as such and at least reading through it before resisting its findings, they will just link to another study they didn't read that happens to say what they want it to.

I get that this isn't something anyone here wants to hear, but it's literally a scientific study. It's not someone who doesn't know what their talking about saying this. At least do the due diligence and know what YOU'RE talking about before you contest its findings. Look at the study and poke holes in how it was conducted or how it was reported if there are any. "I didn't get more aggressive so obviously this study is wrong" isn't a scientific statement.

Because funding can make a mockery of science.
Have you never watched "Thank you for smokeing" ?

Science that isnt objective, isnt really science, if the results can be whatever whoever is funding you, want it to turn out to be.
Hence all the idiots that still dont believe in global warming (an exsample) (because petrol, has scientists bought who conclude silly things)

For some reason, the american politicians WANT to claim that videogames lead to violence.
So they set out to prove it..... and it proves nothing imo.

Indipendent studies have so often claimed the oppersite, that this videogames leads to violence thingy is like some kinda warped myth by now.
Thats why I said what I said.

Theres obvious no real conclusive evidence one way or other, if studies can vary so much in their conclusions.
(I know you ll say the same for global warming, but there its like 99% of scientist vs 1% that work for petrol)

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 03 October 2018