The thought that argues Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez earlier in the video is shared, at least in its main ideas, for many people. Usually they are people of an age group closest to the third age to adolescence.
My goal is to completely refute this idea that video games cause violence. When did violence among humans? It's simple, began with early humans. Is it in the genes? This I can not answer it, I have no competence to do so. However it is clear that violence began in the era of video game. Moreover, the largest massacres of people held in modern bourgeois society (with its double standard bitch), if one that awakens nostalgia for some elderly people in moral matters: says referring to the period in which they gave the first and second world war (1914 - 1945) "There used to respect" . "Before it was something else", "Today people are very violent," "... Did you see that happen? I saw it on TV! Too bad they are young! ", Etc. Beyond the half-truths that these phrases can contain is certain is that all societies have practiced violence: Prehistoric peoples of ancient Mesopotamia, the Egyptians, classical civilizations, the Pre-Columbian peoples of America, medieval society, modern, contemporary, etc.
Therefore, I am not you agree with the idea that holds that certain video games promote violence. How do you explain those who hold this view of violence in other historical periods? How do you explain the violence of the human species from its beginnings until the late 70's, when video games become popular? Ojo! This is not to say that today there is no violence, but blame is a real mess with so much emphasis on video game violence. I believe, does not become either a secondary cause. Except in isolated cases of mentally ill to emulate and put into practice what they see on television, in video games. However, it is plausible to assume that in an era pre game, Martin had emulated Cardagián, Tarzan, and had followed a mystical delirium. For example, the case Pierre Riviere (see Foucault, I, Pierre Rivière, having slaughtered my mother, my sister and my brother ...), a young Frenchman who killed his mother, sister and brother in the second half of the nineteenth century . If Pierre had run the shot in the head with an M-16 style counter strike, we can assume that the press and some old and ignorant cops had their clothes torn, but as Pierre was an unknown peasant nineteenth century Iquitos the most closed minds of today, no problem: "Young people are immoral because if they are violent video games are poor because they are vague and are jets because before leaving the choice to steal or be employed and earn a living wage to live, chose the first option. "
Finally, only one thought: Is our society more violent than those of yesteryear? We do not know. I know not invented a "violentómetro" (ie a machine that measures that societies are more violent). What if there are statistics, which marks the largest massacres and atrocities that occurred before the era of the game. There was never anything similar in magnitude, violence and death toll during the first and second world war: take a look at the following table (note that civilian casualties are not only military):
As if this were Recently, the second war was much worse: the USSR, which topped the 27 million casualties among military and civilian personnel. The Allies (U.S., Britain and France were the main ones) lost 44 million military and civilian lives, while those of the Axis powers (Japan, Italy and Germany) suffered 11 million casualties. The number of dead from both sides in Europe amounted to 19 million victims of the war against Japan reached 6 million. United States, which just suffered casualties among civilians, lost about 400,000 citizens. All this without counting the torture, rape and other abuses that are all known.
these two examples suffice to banish the idea that video games cause violence, at the most are the smallest grain of sand of the beach sand in the world (being exaggerated). EMILIO
TOMASSINI, PROFESSOR IN HISTORY.
0 comments:
Post a Comment