New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Fortunex

Help them to not feed. If you're jungle or mid, go to the lane that's feeding and kill the other dude so much that it's impossible for your laner to die against him.Alternatively, get more fed. If you kill the other team enough that they're all weak, and you're really strong, it doesn't matter if it's 4v5.If you can't get that fed, and can't shut down the enemy in Wood IV, then you belong down there and should work on improving before worrying about your teammates.
Burden of proof... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proofAnd it is a hypothesis.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesisIt is also conjecture.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjectureIt is lip-flapping with no basis. I try not to use the colloquial meaning for the word "theory", as that perpetuates the idea that theories are nothing more than guesses, whereas scientific theories are very different.And yes, there have been a lot of studies...
You also have no evidence to support that hypothesis, which is probably the main reason you're getting so much opposition. If it could be shown that video games influenced people to become violent, it would likely be a completely different story.
My sources are the definition of the word "evidence", and your post."something which shows that something else exists or is true"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidenceI didn't think you would actually need a source for that.
Now you're just trolling?
That isn't evidence that his love of DOOM led to the murders.
That isn't evidence. It doesn't matter what the Columbine kids were into if it didn't affect the outcome. They could be Satanist Nazis and it wouldn't matter if those two things didn't cause them to murder those people.It's very possible that the people who are already psychopaths are more likely to play these types of violent games. Unless you can provide evidence that video games cause people to be more likely to commit murders like this, your argument holds no water...
That's not how the burden of proof works. You don't assume that things happen because there's no evidence that they don't. Like I keep saying, these murderers also all drank milkshakes, you can't prove that milkshakes don't cause murder. That doesn't mean we should assume that they do.
He also played non-violent games. Where is your evidence that games lead to murder? Just saying "well this murderer played video games" is not a causal link. The murderers also drank milkshakes. Do milkshakes lead to murder?"But they are still faced with having to clean up after the mess violent media (and tons of other factors no one can really place in order) made in those specific individual cases."Can you provide a source showing that violent media made any difference...
Source? Or are you now saying that seeing this stuff in video games is equivalent to seeing those things in real life? Which would again require a source.
New Posts  All Forums: