Miscellaneous desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 27

How many roses are sprinkled with dew?

How many roses are sprinkled with dew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.241.79 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Deep Is the Ocean?. Are you done yet? FiggyBee (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not until I find the meaning of love —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.241.79 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary:love FiggyBee (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wuz hoping to find article on wikilove as I love wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.241.79 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOVE Rockpocket 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately 5 gallons, plus or minus 16 Parsecs Per Hertz. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it 42? Lemon martini (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's actually how many roads a man must walk. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've walked more than 42 roads in my life. Am I a man yet? I walked them while figuring out how many friends I'd need to change a light globe. I still haven't got the answer because I keep getting conflicting opinions, and so I remain in the dark about this and so many other matters. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop walking and read a book. :-) --LarryMac | Talk 01:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. No wonder you haven't been able to find it. Gwinva (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget these daft questions.Can we have the answer to something sensible like How Much Is That Doggie In The Window? Lemon martini (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis on soild waste management

My thesis is entitled "Assessment of Solid waste Management in the Province of Northern Samar, Philippines: Inputs to Policy Implementation".Can you help find a sample thesis that I can use as a guideline?203.87.209.130 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)oskied2000[reply]

The requirements for theses at various educational institutions vary greatly, in expected content, structure, and length. You didn't even bother telling us whether this is a BA, MA, or PhD thesis, much less the country you are in (your IP resolves to somewhere in Asia; as someone in the US I wouldn't have the slightest idea what your thesis expectations are). Ask your educational institution, they will have previous theses on record. Ask them for their guidelines as to how the thesis should be written. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the answer above, you should be aware that writing a thesis is not like writing a very good paper and handing it over to a university for them to pass or fail. In many cases, an individual professor will need to agree to personally guide you through the process; if you can't find a suitable proctor, you'll simply be out of luck, no matter how good your work is. The finished paper is the ultimate goal, of course, but any respected professor will want to make sure you got there in the right way, meaning that you'll have to talk with them and explain what you're trying to do right from the very beginning. If you already have a proctor and he or she isn't even giving you basic guidance like how the paper should be written, you need to find someone else. Matt Deres (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.A.N.C.E. T SHIRTS!

D.A.N.C.E. music video T-shirts? Justice - D.A.N.C.E. T-shirts? Can you buy the T-shirts featured in the music video online anywhere?

No, they do sell them. I wasn't asking if they sell because they do, I was asking where. Some here: http://www.hypebeast.com/2007/06/justice...

I was wondering if anyone knows where the CURRENTLY sell those (the ones in the link have sold out) or if there are any more for sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.77.15 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia tends to avoid commercial links, you probably won't find much information about that here. You're probably better off using a search engine like Google. Dforest (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1], fisrt link. 81.96.160.6 (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

german tax

can someone explain articles 42b of the German tax code in english.--Spirom (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.115.213 (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ask "why?"? The "why" doesn't matter, look at all the other silly questions that pop up all the time, and yet you ask "why?" to this one? 206.252.74.48 (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like it may be a homework question to be, so I was just wondering if that was the case. Also, since this refers to the tax code, there is a risk people may feel it would fall into the no legal advice area depending on why Spirom needs an explaination. Ultimately, knowing why is likely to increase the number of people willing to answer, and help people understand what Spirom wants to know since explain articles 42b is a very generic question Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not read german--Spirom (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirom, if you'll provide the text, I'll be happy to try and translate it for you. You can do it on my talk page if you wish. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 21:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

german

if german in german in deutsch, what is dutch in german, or holland. Furthermore, why do we in the english language call eg germany germany rather than deutschland or spain espanyol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.3 (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 'holland' is 'holland' in germany, and 'the dutch' may be 'hollander', but don't take my word for it.. try searching on the internet for "english to german dictionary" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.93.245 (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's Die Niederlande in German (there's a good paragraph on the name of the country over at the Wikipedia Deutschland). Dutchman (a person from that cuntry) in German is Holländer. Germany is called Germany because that's the somehow-historically-explainable translation of the term, in Polish they're called Niemcy, and Poland is Poland in English, and in Lithuanian it's Lenkija, and in Japanese it's Porando. Isn't it beautiful? --Ouro (blah blah) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about this sort of thing.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned two new words :) --Ouro (blah blah) 12:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio of homosexuality and bisexuality among males

Hi, What percentage of men are homosexuals or bisexuals?. Does this ratio change among older men?. Thanks 131.220.46.25 (talk)curious —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best we have is at Demographics of sexual orientation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In America, the most widely regarded statistic is that 1 in 10 Americans are homosexual. Statistical numbers that have been published over the years vary between 1 in 10 , to 1 in 40, though. Guroadrunner (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is often a difference between practice and identification. There are many people who do not call themselves homosexual or even bisexual, and still have same-sex relations. The number of people who have same-sex relations will be somewhat higher than the number of people who identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual. See Men who have sex with men as an example. Steewi (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [small]edited to fix wikilink. Steewi (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[/small][reply]

Home advantage in sports

How important is the home advantage in sports? I'm thinking mostly of association football but other sports would be interesting too. Occasionally teams have to play 'closed' matches without fans, or at neutral venues, does this eliminate the advantage? Thank you 81.96.160.6 (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Home advantage. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch-sizes for soccer vary so often teams have their home-pitch setup to their playing style. Arsenal had a small pitch that seemed to suit their intricate passing game. Also there is home-support which will have a positive impact on the home team - and potentially a negative impact on the away team. There is also the familiarity of playing within the same place/stadium - kinda like how sleeping at home is more 'normal' feeling than sleeping at some other home. In more 'distant' areas you could include local-climate/weather patterns that help, or the placement of the stadium (it may be a less 'windy' area for example). Also there is the 'learned' advantage - most teams playing at home setup in a more 'positive' manner, and often away teams setup more cautiously. This pre-assumed setup could result in a self-fulfilling prophecy and could be as much psychological as anything else. All the above is my interpretation of home-advantage without any study to confirm/deny the effects. ny156uk (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Arsenal have a small pitch". I thought the size of the pitch was laid down in the Laws of the Game? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware pitches must have dimensions of between certain sizes, so it's possible for some to be smaller than others. Phileas (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there are upper and low limits - look at the article Football pitch it can be between 90 and 120 metres long, and 45 and 90 metres wide it seems, it is only things like the penalty-area/penalty-spot that are specifically the same for everyone. I think in the Emirates Arsenal are no longer smaller, but they used to have a wide short pitch if I recall correctly. ny156uk (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, really, the psychological edge. The aricle is pretty good, thanks, but seems to be mostly about gridiron. I just would have thought that players would get used to playing in front of thousands of away fans and it shouldn't really make that much difference. Thanks a lot 81.96.160.6 (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in reading An Examination of the Homefield Advantage in a Professional English Soccer Team from a Psychological Standpoint Nanonic (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are physical concerns as well, regarding size of field and stadium. There are no fixed requirements for cricket fields, for example, and cricket pitches vary greatly between grounds, which favours some teams over others (and batters over bowlers and vice versa). Stadium constructions offer significant home advantages in some sports, like Rugby, where kickers often line up drop kicks and punts using the grandstands (ie to judge where the touchline or other field markings are). Wind, weather and other climatic conditions also affect teams. Gwinva (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And altitude can have an effect Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jain

How would one go about converting to being a Jain. How can one escape modern society and its violence as seen through the eyes of a Jain, which I feel I am. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to India, find some Jains to live with and adopt their ways. Bellum et Pax (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that easy? If I wanted to be a Christian, I could not just move into your house, or could I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.136.2 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot truly escape modern society and violence. Just look at the Amish. It's sad that no matter where you go or what you do, people are basically the same. Might I suggest a deserted island? Then again, you might declare war on yourself. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try here for more links http://www.beliefnet.com/index/index_10040.html there are some links on the right of the page. I understand that if you act and feel like a Jain you probably are, I may not be right though. It looks like Jainism does not seek converts - conversely it doesn't seem to dissallow them either.

At Religious_conversion#Conversion_to_Indian_religions is say's not possible - it might be better to ask around at Portal:Jainism for an answer to whether or not it's possible. Good luck.87.102.93.245 (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that Jains escape from modern society? I know quite a few Jains, and they all have modern jobs (off the top of my head I can think of a physician, dean, architect, and hedge fund modeller) and live modern lifestyles. --M @r ē ino 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this font?

Go here: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/columnists/kavanagh/article686412.ece and look at the headline and text in the image bubble. What is that font??? Guroadrunner (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess: Verdana. There are three font families specified in the css, but I cannot relate the CSS to the displayed page. The other two are georgia (font) and arial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was created with a Flash font gennerator and the file name is futura.swf -- so I'll have to play around with MS Word to see if its Futura, along with the ones mentioned ... Guroadrunner (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not Futura. WhatTheFont suggested Tempo Heavy Condensed, and I agree. The Flash technique they're using is called SIFR, by the way. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 18:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normal for spread to leak polyester?

I bought a 100% cotton bed spread from a retailer that was going out of business in that particular mall, filled with 100% polyester, and it's making me itch. Funny thing is, little fibers are coming out more where my legs are (which is about at the middle of the bedspread) isntead of where I pull it up - so obviously, it's not the stress of being pulled (though of course some movement will occur there, but not as much).

I just got rid of an old down comforter that was coming undone after about 8-9 years, and haven't had one like this before. Does it flake like this because it was just old? WOuld trying to vaccum up the little fibers help, or are there little holes in this spread that mean when I get those swept up, more will come?

It just seems weird that a new mattress/spread would do this, but of course, if it was sitting there for a long time and people were constantly squeezing it, who knows.4.68.248.130 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess that you move your legs around a lot when you sleep - casuing the wear in that area.

Should it do that - no not really. I suppose you know why it was in a sale now. I'd guess that more will come if you get rid of the ones already there. Sorry I can't think of a solution for you.87.102.84.112 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - yes, I do, although now I wonder if the culprit was the blanket, as I hadn't washed it before use (it ws 100% cotton godon, whatever that is - that's how it looked to me, being legally blind, when I tried to read the tag). I washed the thing, and dried it, and the lint filter in my drier was completely full of thick stuff 2/3 of the way through, when i checked and changed it.

So, next course of action is to see what it was making me itch, and what those little fibers were. I'll sleep once with the blanket and an old comforter, once with the comforter and a different blanket, and compare.

Thanks again.4.68.248.130 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

obesity in the nursing and physician field

Subject: Obesity with nurses and doctors

I have noticed the more I go to doctors, the more I've noticed that the nurses and the doctors are overweight or obese. It bothers me that these are the people telling me how to watch my diet and exercise for my health. My nutritionist who is 50 pounds overweight and is telling me what to eat healthy. I'm a diabetic so I watch my eating habits. But the question is, Shouldn't the medical field look at them selves before giving advice to others. Maybe others would take them a little more seriously. It's like a doctor is smoking in front of you and telling you not to smoke it's unhealthy?

Comment provided February 26, 2008 at 11:33 amSheesh64 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, perhaps. While you've got a point that patients might be more receptive to a doc who doesn't seem obviously hypocritical, I can't concur that doctors should withhold good medical advice in the interim. — Lomn 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not should you expect people to only be considered a trusted authority on something if they practice what they preach. What if the doctor makes the lifestyle choice to be that weight? They may prefer not to do exercise, or they may enjoy the food/lifestyle they follow and consider that to be more important than their long-term health (ignoring the stats that show mild obesity has limited impact on longevity/quality of life). Their job is to advise you on how to be better - not to advise themselves. Certainly I see what you mean about the 'appearance' and 'impression' they give, but we shouldn't promote that kind of simplistic thinking in society. We have enough problems caused by that sort of logic as it is. The role of doctor is not to be healthy, it is to know what it takes to be healthy/how to deal with the unhealthy. The former is not a reliable guide of their ability to do the latter, and we should not promote it to be so. ny156uk (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a phenomenon summed up in the old proverb "cobblers' children have no shoes". We can generalise further: architects' houses are never finished, plumbers' pipes leak, policemen get drunk, mechanics have broken-down cars, physicians get fat, lawyers die intestate... No one ever gets round to performing the tasks or follwoing the advice they spend their working life doing/giving. Gwinva (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed a lot of big butted nurses who smoke. But most doctors I know seem to be slim and dont smoke (as far as I know). Anyway, its: do what I say; not do what I do (in terms of professional advice). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.173.143 (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People forced to fight in armies

Hi. I recently read about the Colombian FAQ guerillas using large amounts of people forced into fighting for them. I know that this happens in a lot of similar armies. But how do they make sure everyone fights for them? If the majority of people are forced into fighting why dont they all just desert? Surely they cant keep order, as most of them dont want to be there and therefore wouldnt stop deserters since they are like mided? I was just wondering why they dont end up with everyone just saying "I'm off, bye!", leaving the leadership with no soldiers. 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's where the guys in the lead come into play. Probably a large number of people can be coerced into fighting for a certain side with promises of food, drink, shelter, freedom, or just plain the right to breathe and walk. The first person to say 'I'm off, bye!' will probably serve as an example of just how quickly especially the right to breathe can be lost. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is historical fact, but the conscripts who attempted to flee in Enemy at the Gates in the Battle of Stalingrad were all shot on sight. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Stalin issued an order to kill people suspected of cowardes(i.e retreat) and trying to start panic. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also underestimate the ability of the few to rule over the many. Effective use of propaganda, a cultural history of deference to seniority, intelligently framed debate and a good campaign of fear should be enough for most people. The German's managed to hold many many Polish/Jewish people with very limited troops holding them use a good amount of misinformation, promise of safety/security, intimidation etc. Things such as the Milgram experiment are examples of how 'senior-figures' are trusted to extreme lengths on the basis of their position. ny156uk (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with Ouro. Something you might want to check out too would be the documentary on Gerda Weissman. Although she wasn't forced to fight, she was forced to walk for months while in a concentration camp. When some of her friends got the idea for running away, they were shot on the spot. Although there weren't many SS men watching them, they were still able to keep control of their prisoners.--Dlo2012 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider the effect of machine guns behind the people in the front line.86.209.154.32 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Violence in Video Games causing violence in people?

There was a recent article I read that said that the more violent the video game (or any entertainment) in that matter causes people to think more violently and think that violence is okay. For 10 years I have watched gore filled horror films, played the goriest games, watched the most brutal concerts in history and NOT once have I EVER felt like being violent towards people. So what makes this critics think the Video Game violence causing people to become more violent? Is it just a way to take back more of our freedom? Sorry for ranting about this I just needed to get it off my chest.--SlaveofBetrayal (Talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008

As far as I know, there has never been a real scientific survey on the impact of video gaming over long term. Possibly I can understand that in the very short term it might have some psychological effect, but I'd also think that the problem is mainly due to the ratings system not being enforced. No, I don't think that 8 year olds should be playing GTA - there's a reason it's rated 18. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few studies that suggest it may have an impact - but none are conclusive (that i've seen) and none have shown any real impact that is over and above 100s of other factors that could be considered to increase violence. Usually the reasoning is a lack of understanding of that genre/medium and in fear (or through lack of understanding) they decide that because it allows X it must lead to an increase in Y. It may be a moral-outrage that anybody could find doing X entertaining/enjoyable, because they have a moral-standard different to many others, or it may be that they fear the 'realism' in comparison to books is much higher and because it is interactive (unlike say a gory film) that the individual will be given 'ideas' and 'taught' how to implement said ideas. From my perspective mostly it comes down to a basic lack of understanding about people, and gaming, but then i am 100% in the "violence in games is nothing to be worried about in the slightest" camp so i'm probably biased in my opinions. Unlike Mattbuck I don't believe that age matters particularly, I work on a belief that the more we 'hide' things from people the more 'important' it makes it feel to them, and the more likely it is to be considered 'major' when in reality it is a game - like playing cops and robbers, or doctors and nurses. Getting people understanding it is 'play' is (to me) the most important part, because play has always involved things that if 'real' would be shocking/dangerous/bad for society etc. ny156uk (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonable to suppose that thousands of hours of exposure to a thing will have no effect? At the very least that's thousands of hours not spent doing some other thing. My mother would tell us "monkey see, monkey do", and it would be impossible to refute her with all the science in the world. And is your question political or psychological? To start by asking for facts and end by "ranting", as you put it, against the evil conspiracy of whoever without waiting for said facts is not sensible. Let me ask you, do you suppose you'd be able to tell if all that exposure made your mind today different from what it would have been if you'd spent that same time, oh, birdwatching, let's say? Seriously. I'm not trying to be crappy or facetious (I'm much better at that than this). --Milkbreath (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I haven't researched this issue in depth. I do have a friend who wrote his master's thesis on the topic of the effects of media violence and came to the conclusion that everything we hear about violent media causing real-life problems is a bunch of crap. As pointed out above, there are hundreds of factors that influence one's personality, and what one sees on a TV or PC screen is probably fairly minor in the scheme of things. The interaction one has with the real-life people around him or her, especially one's parents growing up, is far more important. After all, even if one spends an hour a day playing video games, that's only a tiny portion of one's waking hours. Juvenile-crime rates, and crime rates overall, were higher 25 years ago when home video games consisted of a little dot bouncing between two lines. The youths most likely to end up in trouble with the law are those in poverty, not ones playing Halo 3 on 60" plasma TVs. My opinion is that politicians don't want to blame parents for kids getting screwed up, and they don't want to blame themselves for poor government policy. So video games, movies and TV make an easy target. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not cause a person to go out and commit violent acts, but it certainly desensitises people to violence. We've all experienced that, with the mass coverage of murders, rapes, genocide etc on the daily news. Once upon a time the reaction might have been "Oh, how shocking" - now, it's "Ho hum, boring. Next". Which is why calls for international assistance for people in distress due to earthquakes, drought etc often fall on deaf ears unless the victims are in one's own backyard. Being desensitised to violence also doesn't cause people to commit violence, but it might reduce whatever scruples they have if they're ever in a situation where they're provoked or tempted. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Grossman argues, in the last chapters of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, that violent archetypes in movies create models for young male interactions that encourage violent (fight or flight) solutions rather than solutions more natural to intra-species conflict (which include such options as non-fighting intimidation and submission—think about how dogs interact with one another versus how they interact with animals of any other species). In a sense, his argument there is that our exposure to such media gives people an unrealistic expectation of human violent interactions, to the point where we think that all soldiers in previous wars must have actually killed someone (he marshals a lot of evidence to show that in wars prior to Vietnam, very few infantrymen were responsible for shooting deaths, for example). He further argues, and I think far less plausibly, that because violent video games are built on the same Pavlovian stimulus-response model as modern (post-Vietnam) military training, that it will encourage similar reactions in others. I think the first argument is not at all implausible, though the latter seems like a bit of a stretch to me (given that you don't really engage much of your physical body while playing such video games, which I see as a key difference between the type of military training he described). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Thompson claims that video games cause violence, especially school shootings, but no scientific experiement has ever been done and it seems pretty clear that it doesn't (or we'd have millions of school shooters, instead of tens). I'd have to agree that it does cause insensitivity, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Useight (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I agree with Jack Thompson but intrisicly, there is no reason why video games can't cause violence, in a small number of people but not in the majority of people. Even if that is true, it doesn't necessary suggest video games should be banned or restricted but the premise 'the vast majority of people who play video games don't become school shooters' while true, doesn't in fact in any way rule out that video games did cause violence in the cases where Jack Thompson says it did. The problem with Jack Thompson's argument is the first thing you said. Although there is no evidence AFAIK to disprove that he says, there is no evidence suggesting it is true either so we have to lean towards it being more complicated then it having a simplistic role (although perhaps not ruling it out being a component). The second things of course is whether Jack Thompsons proposed solutions make sense which many people would say they don't Nil Einne (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented earlier, but I have since found an interesting game called Super Columbine Massacre RPG!, where the player takes the role of Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold in performing the Columbine Massacre. It raised some interesting questions - there was a LOT of moral outrage at it, versus very little when say Bowling for Columbine was released, and yet it has also been said to be the most important video game of all time, since it breaks out of the genre of light entertainment, and makes people actually think about something.

Now, there is little if no evidence that violent video games have any more effect on thinking than say a movie. Maybe age isn't an issue, but I admit I adhere to a form of censorship in that I find swearing around children to be distasteful. I also consider that viewing blood and gore can be quite traumatising, and that for that reason there should be age limits. However, no limits should ever be hard and fast. Some people are mature enough to play GTA at say 12, while others may not be mature enough at 21. The point is in understanding the difference between real world and fantasy - some people get a grip on this earlier or later than others. If you know that what you do in a game is not allowable in the real world, then that's fine.

To return to Columbine, I read a book by Eric Harris's friend, Brooks Brown. In it, he tells of how they played Doom together as children, and how when someone was decapitated, they were not horrified, they laughed because they knew it was fake. He says that video games are not to blame for the massacre, nor are guns, Marilyn Manson, nor the parents. Instead he lays the blame at a school where bullying was rampant, and ignored by the staff. Where unless you were the average jock, the teachers wouldn't give a dam.

To sum up, I can see that violence in video games can have an effect on some people, but that those problems which are often blamed on such violence are rarely if ever caused by that. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some degree, but I don't think it's a problem with reality vs. fantasy. That's often how it gets talked about, but I don't think people ever really doubt that line; when they actualize a fantasy (however grim), it seems like in except for cases of extreme dementia or hallucination, they are well aware that it is "reality"--they don't think they're in a game or anything like that, they are actively trying to translate a fantasy of theirs into a reality. I'm not sure what the difference actually is, but I'm dubious that that particular distinction is the one at issue. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that if violent video games led to real-world violence, there would have been a tremendous increase, rather than a decrease, in violent-crime rates, especially among juveniles, in the U.S. in the 1990s. On the contrary, juvenile crime plummeted by two-thirds between 1993 and 2005. ([2]) The introduction of realistically violent video games coincided with a dramatic drop in juvenile crime! So much for kids getting desensitized. Perhaps instead of turning kids into killers, violent video games allow violent people to take out their aggression on pixels rather than on real people! -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion (and that's all it is, opinion) is that video games have no power to influence peoples behaviour beyond early childhood, and even then I think the effects are minimal. I've played a lot of violent games but I've been in less than two real fights in my life, and alcohol caused that one. The people who commit these atrocities all seem to have serious mental health problems, often coupled with other, social, issues. Having said that, Marcus Brigstocke said that "if video games really influenced people, everyone who was raised in the 80s would spent their time in dark rooms listening to repetetive music and munching magic pills", so maybe there's something to be said for the theory...81.96.160.6 (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but I'd also think that the problem is mainly due to the ratings system not being enforced.

This I quoted because I thought of it as ridiculous. It has been enforced by law with the rating system. The reason eight years old are playing GTA is because parents don't enforce it. It isn't the government responsibility and its not the game stores responsibility its the parents. No, eight years old shouldn't be playing GTA, but the law has been enforced just not by parents.

Now for violence in video games. It has no effect if it did then I would have shot someone by now. I've played those types of games for a long time and it had no effect on me. Personally in my opinion(my opinion remember that) I think that its the environment the child lives in more then what he watches on TV. The environment of the household is what effects a child's aggressive behavior. If the child lives in a violent home he'll become violent. Or absorb the mild ideas of violence as a punishment. Also in my opinion I think violent games are a great way to escape reality You can be whatever you want a soldier, a pinata, etc.. If you don't like violent games don't buy them as simple as that. Also violent video games in my opinion help release stress. Pretend for a second that zombie is your boss.

Video games are just a tool to escape from reality as simple as that.71.142.242.233 (talk) 06:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]

Let's put it this way. I've been playing FPSes since I was a little boy. I find it extremely satisfying to shoot someone who's been troubling me in a game, love ragdoll physics, and am fastinated by guns. In GTA I kill whoever I feel like whenever I feel like for fun. However, if you gave me a real gun and told me to just aim it at a real person, I couldn't do it. I would never shoot another person to kill, not even in self-defense. Just the thought of killing another human being makes me want to vomit. It was the same when I was a little kid. Videogames do not make people violent, period. Like other people said, it is the environment the person was raising in, as well as how their mind works from the beginning. I think about how I act as an adult and I notice a whole host of little things that happened as a child to shape me into who I am today. I also remember things I thought about when I was about 5 (yes, I remember that far back) and how those thoughts were a precursor to what I would think decades later. A person's entire being - their attitudes towards violence, their sexual preferances, their major interests, their behavior towards others - is all there at an extremely young age, in the mind waiting to emerge later in life. No activity like video games could possibly change who you were destined to be. You don't behave the same way in a video game that you would in real life, you know it isn't real, that it's sole purpose is to do things you can't do in real life. There are some people who are motivated to do things by playing video games, these people have no clear perception of reality. Most of the other people who cause violence were like that to begin with. I am reminded of a letter by the aunt of a kid who tortured and murdered a homeless man, sent to the gaming comic Penny Arcade. The kid said video games made him do it, but this letter told the real story. He was violent and rebellious, and tormented his parents - but no one would listen to the parents, they only put them at fault. He would be taken home by the police every week and yet he'd steal sneak out of the house every day to rob stores and beat up random people. But the media doesn't care, they just blame video games and move on. This letter literally brought me to tears. How many people must be hurt because people ignore the real issue and blame it on a convenient scapegoat? I apoligize sincerely for the ridiculously long post, but this is one of the issues I feel extremely strongly about. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The kid said video games made him do it, but this letter told the real story. He was violent and rebellious, and tormented his parents - but no one would listen to the parents, they only put them at fault. He would be taken home by the police every week and yet he'd steal sneak out of the house every day to rob stores and beat up random people. But the media doesn't care, they just blame video games and move on. This letter literally brought me to tears. How many people must be hurt because people ignore the real issue and blame it on a convenient scapegoat?

No offense to people I'm about to say something that may offend. Just a warning. Video games are a scapegoat of not taking responsibility. The same goes for religion. Religion is a scapegoat for not taking any responsibility. How many people say it was God who made me do it? Its the same with video games. Though many people won't notice that they use religion as a scapegoat most of the time. Once again no offense to people. You'll just have to learn how to except people's opinions.71.142.242.233 (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven[reply]