40 replies to this topic

[Admiral Wesley]

According to Kotaku, 9-Year-Old Damori Miles jumped off his apartment building and died two days ago. Was he an emo? No. What he was doing was imitating a manuever in WWE SmackDown VS. Raw 2009. The kid played the game ad nauseum, and was a SpEd.

Linky.

In my opinion, this is just another example of video games affecting people's minds. What people do is they just won't realize that a video game is just that: A GAME. They need to say to themselves while playing the game, "I know this is just a game, and whatever happens in the game, stays in the game." However, one night when I was playing Splinter Cell I went downstairs to get a snack and I kept crouching in the shadows, and my mom asked what I was on.

I just hope no-one sues WWE. I don't want to see Undertaker's cape at the Goodwill store.

Discuss.

[SorataZ]

How can a 9 year old actually be allowed by his parents to play a Wrestling game?

[Admiral Wesley]

The game was rated T. And, a LOT of kids like wrestling.

[Ion Cannon!]

Doesn't mean he should play it. T is for Teen. 9 years old is clearly not a teen. Parents fault.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 16 April 2009 - 22:15.

[BeefJeRKy]

Quote

And what was the WWE's response? Along with pointing out that no WWE or RAW characters jump off of roofs wearing parachutes,

Exactly this.

Quote

This is the most sense the WWE has made to me in decades. The roof should have been locked. Neighbors said that an alarm should have gone off, but it had not. The boy's mother had left him alone to go to the store. A 9-year-old who had received special education instruction, left alone to his own devices.

The parents were neglectful of their child in need of special care.

Quote

What I find the most telling is the fact that the New York Daily News' original story had no mention of the video game connection, simply titled "9-year-old Brooklyn boy jumps from building using makeshift parachute and dies", written by different staff writers. THe same story from two different angles.

Yay, someone ignoring the "video game" variable in this equation

[Flechette?]

Scope, on 17 Apr 2009, 7:49, said:

The parents were neglectful of their child in need of special care.

Quote

What I find the most telling is the fact that the New York Daily News' original story had no mention of the video game connection, simply titled "9-year-old Brooklyn boy jumps from building using makeshift parachute and dies", written by different staff writers. The same story from two different angles.

Yay, someone ignoring the "video game" variable in this equation

If you're an journalist, you tend to think in headlines (Terry Pratchett got this one), in this case, it certainly gets people attention and leaves out some *IMPORTANT klaxons going off* detail that isn't quite worth putting into size 20 bold.

[Chyros]

People that actually get affected by video games into doing this would have found something to die because of soon anyway. It means that you have no thoughts of your own and will do things like this regardless of what media you are exposed to.

Edited by Chyros, 16 April 2009 - 23:13.

[Brad]

This is all obviously the parents fault, and of course whoever is resonsible for the roof alarm etc.
This really shows where video games may get blamed because of negligent parents who leave children who shouldn't even be playing the games they are.

It dosn't help either that the child had special needs.

[Admiral Wesley]

That's why we have parents. To prevent us from doing stupid things. The parents ARE to blame, the lady was out at the store while the "SPECIAL" kid decided to jump off the roof. When it says he was special needs, I assume he was retarded, or autistic, or some shit like that. The parent was being neglegent. (Did I spell that correctly? Whatevs.)

[NergiZed]

Man, not to be insensitive or anything, but every time I read an article like this, I think: Natural Selection.

[Lord Atlantis]

I argee with NergiZed on this one. While both the kid (granted he had no choice with needing special education) and the parents (for not attending to the kid how they should have) are at fault, the people who take games as real life and substitute it in instead of having their own thoughts won't contribute to society.

While it is sad, its true.

[Nem]

General Wesley, on 16 Apr 2009, 17:23, said:

In my opinion, this is just another example of Natural Selection.

Fixed.

Edit: Did not read NergiZed's post, my apologies.

Edited by Nem, 17 April 2009 - 02:11.

[Overdose]

Sorry but I feel the same.

Pavement 1 x Kid 0

[Libains]

I'm not a fan of Natural Selection - great principle and all, but with it I'd be dead and well, that wouldn't be very nice. Tbh, it was foolish care on behalf of his parents - SpEd kids need looking after. Also, why is this in game discussion> As it's frankly got next to nothing to do with a game, more about negligent care. Thus, I propose a move to the PC as I reckon it's suited more to there.

[Comrade Sanders]

NergiZed, on 17 Apr 2009, 2:17, said:

Man, not to be insensitive or anything, but every time I read an article like this, I think: Natural Selection.

pretty much sums it up for me.

[Overdose]

Libains, on 17 Apr 2009, 0:04, said:

I'm not a fan of Natural Selection - great principle and all, but with it I'd be dead and well, that wouldn't be very nice. Tbh, it was foolish care on behalf of his parents - SpEd kids need looking after. Also, why is this in game discussion> As it's frankly got next to nothing to do with a game, more about negligent care. Thus, I propose a move to the PC as I reckon it's suited more to there.

I understand how you feel and I feel partially the same. If I was born a thousand years ago I'd probably have a short life. I'm short and physically weak, my health isn't perfect either. These days however I can outlive others through wits, wisdom, intelligence and charisma. Natural selection for humans changed wildly since we've became civilized. Though in my opinion, we're still far from being a truly civilized species.

[Libains]

Overdose, on 17 Apr 2009, 4:16, said:

Libains, on 17 Apr 2009, 0:04, said:

I'm not a fan of Natural Selection - great principle and all, but with it I'd be dead and well, that wouldn't be very nice. Tbh, it was foolish care on behalf of his parents - SpEd kids need looking after. Also, why is this in game discussion> As it's frankly got next to nothing to do with a game, more about negligent care. Thus, I propose a move to the PC as I reckon it's suited more to there.

I understand how you feel and I feel partially the same. If I was born a thousand years ago I'd probably have a short life. I'm short and physically weak, my health isn't perfect either. These days however I can outlive others through wits, wisdom, intelligence and charisma. Natural selection for humans changed wildly since we've became civilized. Though in my opinion, we're still far from being a truly civilized species.

Absolutely agreed - Natural Selection essentially died when we leant how to cure mortal diseases etc - by curing that person you are preventing natural selection from working - I for example am diabetic and would have been dead by the age of three had it not been for medical intervention. While that's kinda good, it's fair to say that as I now have a life, I will pass on my genes, which are messed up, and thus am not producing a perfectly viable offspring. Therefore, the process of natural selection can't keep going as was intended, and humans will not phase out genetic issues - they will remain forever. Frankly, my curing people at this point in time we are increasing the likelyhood of never reaching a phase in our existence where our genetics are right. We will forever be 'not quite completely evolved'

Btw, I still propose a move to PC - natural selection, poor healthcare, etc doesn't belong in Game Discussion to me.

Edited by Libains, 17 April 2009 - 03:47.

[Overdose]

In the end we'd have an artificial evolution I believe once our technology reaches that level possibly a thousand years from now. The next step of human evolution will be through science. I would both fear and be amazed at the results.

[BeefJeRKy]

Libains, on 16 Apr 2009, 23:24, said:

Overdose, on 17 Apr 2009, 4:16, said:

Libains, on 17 Apr 2009, 0:04, said:

I'm not a fan of Natural Selection - great principle and all, but with it I'd be dead and well, that wouldn't be very nice. Tbh, it was foolish care on behalf of his parents - SpEd kids need looking after. Also, why is this in game discussion> As it's frankly got next to nothing to do with a game, more about negligent care. Thus, I propose a move to the PC as I reckon it's suited more to there.

I understand how you feel and I feel partially the same. If I was born a thousand years ago I'd probably have a short life. I'm short and physically weak, my health isn't perfect either. These days however I can outlive others through wits, wisdom, intelligence and charisma. Natural selection for humans changed wildly since we've became civilized. Though in my opinion, we're still far from being a truly civilized species.

Absolutely agreed - Natural Selection essentially died when we leant how to cure mortal diseases etc - by curing that person you are preventing natural selection from working - I for example am diabetic and would have been dead by the age of three had it not been for medical intervention. While that's kinda good, it's fair to say that as I now have a life, I will pass on my genes, which are messed up, and thus am not producing a perfectly viable offspring. Therefore, the process of natural selection can't keep going as was intended, and humans will not phase out genetic issues - they will remain forever. Frankly, my curing people at this point in time we are increasing the likelyhood of never reaching a phase in our existence where our genetics are right. We will forever be 'not quite completely evolved'

Btw, I still propose a move to PC - natural selection, poor healthcare, etc doesn't belong in Game Discussion to me.

Natural Selection still exists technically but its effect has been dampened by our own actions. As you said, we have been eliminating diseases. At the same time, we have bred and raised cattle and other domestic animals while pushing other species to extinction. However, large scale events still affect species evolution IMO.

[Major Fuckup]

Comrade Sanders, on 17 Apr 2009, 11:04, said:

NergiZed, on 17 Apr 2009, 2:17, said:

Man, not to be insensitive or anything, but every time I read an article like this, I think: Natural Selection.

pretty much sums it up for me.

you shouldn't feel to bad i laughed when i read the article. i wonder how long it will be before people start saying its the games fault? but its the parents fault and natural selection seems to have played a apart.
so whats the count on video games blamed for violence and death? that would be the second one recently before that was that german kid school shooting IIRC

[Dauth]

AJ you're being logical but not following it to the final conclusion. As we are not removing non-viable genes from the gene pool and that the number of mutations are consistent over a long enough time period (200y or more tbh) then it stands to reason that it is increasingly likely that we will develop more diseases as time advances.

@Topic, natural selection is no longer physical it is becoming more mental. Though not fast enough imo, if a parent does not want to look after their offspring then the consequence of their actions is easy to see.

[RaiDK]

Bad parenting. Clearly it's a Teen game so she shouldn't have been playing it.

/thread.

[Admiral Wesley]

Well, it's NOT, I reapeat, is NOT about the content of the game. It was wrestling. I believe it was bad parenting, ABSOLUTLEY. Scince the kid was a special needs kid, he obviously needed a nanny, or maybe CABAL to monitor him or something.

I believe it is natural selection. Natural selection is my new thing.

Suggested Reading: The Darwin Awards

[Camille]

Quote

I believe it is natural selection. Natural selection is my new thing.

heh?

@topic: people blaming videogames to be the source of all evil are IMO usually the guys who raise unstable children. just my notice...

[Libains]

Dauth, on 17 Apr 2009, 8:29, said:

AJ you're being logical but not following it to the final conclusion. As we are not removing non-viable genes from the gene pool and that the number of mutations are consistent over a long enough time period (200y or more tbh) then it stands to reason that it is increasingly likely that we will develop more diseases as time advances.

@Topic, natural selection is no longer physical it is becoming more mental. Though not fast enough imo, if a parent does not want to look after their offspring then the consequence of their actions is easy to see.

Hmmm, it's true that as keep the useless, defective genes around we're more likely to develop diseases from them. Howeever it is a narcissistic view and I'd rather think that prior to then we will as a race either fix these genetic mutations forever, or be able to completely cure them when they raise their head. Sadly though, if the human race refuses to let itself evolve, which it is doing at the moment, I can see nothing more than a very bleak future for our race.