Dr. Phil Explains It All

Don't miss this amusing comment on Dr. Phil's assertion that video games are responsible for the violence at Virginia Tech.

< Gun Control is Not a Cure | Gates: Congressional Pressure On Iraq "Helpful" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    86% (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    According to the (Dem) sponsor of the 'violent videogame' ban legislation pending in the Wisconsin Assembly, "86% of 16 year old boys play these games."

    If 86% of our young men become mass school killers, they'll soon run out of victims.

    Gammers don't use Glocks (none / 0) (#2)
    by aztrias on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 10:45:39 PM EST
    The shooter did all this damage with a 9mm Glock 19 hand gun and a box of ammo.

    That's what scary - no AK-47, explosives or stash of weapons.

    The Problem Is (none / 0) (#3)
    by mmeo on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 11:08:35 PM EST
    why are so many people "crazy"?

    We've had guns quite a few centuries now.  How long have we had students in universities mass murdering other students in univeristy?  Since 1966?

    Saying that the mass murderer is "crazy" is a failure to explain.  Hitler was "crazy"; Stalin was "crazy"; yet, Hitler and Stalin operated within a social framework that made their actions likely.

    The social framework of the United States in 2007 makes mass murders ever more likely.

    That is why you should be concerned what this Cho fellow watched.

    1 in 1000 (none / 0) (#4)
    by aztrias on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 12:32:03 AM EST
    One hand gun can do a lot more damage than a sword or knife or hunting rifle.

    This was done with 1 Glock 19 and and box of ammo.

    VT has 28,470 students.

    The odds of "schizophrenia" in the general population is 1:100.  So make it 10 times less likely someone is ill enough to become violent and does not get help in time so make the odds 1 out of 1000 per year.

    That's 28 people on a campus the size of VT.

    Make it ten times less likely (1:10,000) and there are still two people.

    Social services have a purpose. It's not just for their good. Intervention and consoling services help us all.


    mmeo (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 08:43:33 AM EST
    The social framework of the United States in 2007 makes mass murders ever more likely.

    Really? Prior to 1966 we had almost no civil rights. No counselors. No demonstrations to let off steam. Almost none of the infrastructure for "support," etc.

    It was a buttoned down and zipped up society....

    So. Are you saying we need to return to those days of yesteryear??


    quite amusing ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 09:22:46 AM EST
    ... coming from someone who wants folks detained for wearing Tshirts.

    Unless the t-shirt (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    says "social liberal" on the front and has this on the back.

    Making things up again, eh? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 08:42:16 AM EST
    I have never proposed that.

    Why do you make things up? Everyone is on to your game.  Wasn't it Wile who, a few weeks ago said that saior has a thing for PPJ?


    For every theory... (none / 0) (#5)
    by HK on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 07:27:41 AM EST
    ...there is an equal and an opposite theory.  Some would argue that violence seen on a screen, whether it be film or video game, is an outlet for the viewer and therefore decreases the likelihood that they will actually do something violent themselves.  The fact is that there are too many variables to be able to attribute violent acts to any one factor.

    I don't really know who he is, (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peaches on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    but, I suspect he's an idiot (Dr. Phil). I don't get how people can argue with his quote though.

    [T]he problem is we are programming these people as a society. You cannot tell me -- common sense tells you that if these kids are playing video games, where they're on a mass killing spree in a video game, it's glamorized on the big screen, it's become part of the fiber of our society. You take that and mix it with a psychopath, a sociopath or someone suffering from mental illness and add in a dose of rage, the suggestibility is too high. And we're going to have to start dealing with that. We're going to have to start addressing those issues and recognizing that the mass murders of tomorrow are the children of today that are being programmed with this massive violence overdose.

    I remember a Michael Ventura column from way back, (1990 or so), and he was making a point about the cold war. There was a discussion at the time over whether or not there should be a requirement for military service and US being unprepared since the USSR required a two year commitment from all of its male citizens. Ventura argued after the fact that our citizens were better prepared for modern warfare because of our society making a sport out of killing in videogames, movies, television, etc. I don't think we need to ask government to regulate it, but I also think that communities should not be restricted by government if they attempt some means to protect their children from the sinister influence of these games. Not everyone who watches or plays these games becomes a psycho- or sociopath. Not even a smal minority does. But, playing these games does condition the mind in certain ways. Most psychologist understand this. Just as societies that allow its children to simulate war (palestinian children throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers, Irish protestant and catholic children simulating war games in belfast, etc) will be better prepared for the real thing when the children reach adulthood, our societie's emphasis on the commercialization of violence prepares our citizens for real-life violence.

    There have been many anthropological studies on primitive tribes comparing the games of children between warring and peaceful tribes. Not surprisingly, the warring tribe's childrens games were always of a more violent nature.

    "Doctor" Phil? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Apr 18, 2007 at 05:22:27 PM EST
    For me, Dr. Phil's opinion on something is about as important as Laura Bush's.  Who could possibly care enough about it to even find out what the opinion is?

    Dr. Phil's pay is the reciprocal of his value to society.

    DA AGAIN fails to read the thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 19, 2007 at 09:05:09 AM EST
    before making a needless and off topic attack. As he does this regularly, I assume that he is wanting to  claim that he has great knowledge on a variety of subjects. Now I have no doubt that he is an expert on all things, and is just bursting with pride at his ability to use Google. But why the "igornance of history" comment?

    I say "does this regularly" because he has now done it three times in a row. Had he read, he would have known, since I was responding to mmemo, that I was referring to mmemo's statement/claim:

    How long have we had students in universities mass murdering other students in univeristy?  Since 1966?

    Could it be because he, like sailor, has adopted me and faithfully follows me around making mostly inaccurate and, in many cases, off topic attacks.

    I am beginning to feel like a Casear, who had a slave standing behind his throne charged with whispering in his ear, "Remember, you are not a God."

    DA and sailor. Please, please feel free to continue.