Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Boy kills dad with sledgehammer after being banned from playing computer games
Options
Comments
-
-
-
PogMoThoin wrote: »Don't let the door hit You on the way outI think if you beat someone to death with a sledgehammer you're probably not exactly of the best mental health.
Plus there aren't even any sledgehammers in Halo. Maybe if he had of teabagged him to death instead....Wow, just wow.
Yeah cause obviously the kid was at the peak of mental health.
Because obviously halo is a famously violent game and all the kids who play it kill their dads with sledgehammers
And obviously the kid wasn't bat **** crazy , and that response would never have happened if they took away something else a kid like that might be addicted too, TV, seeing his friends , grounded in his room... etc etc
Obviously you know everything about the report if you conclude halo made the kid kill his dad with a sledgehammer... :rolleyes:
Let me point out the obvious.
"Kid kills father because he is prevented from playing games"... Says it all really.
But people love for games will blind them completely. A bit of common sense is all that's needed.
If somebody kills somebody they obviously have a mental health issue? Oh lol... What complete and utter rubbish.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
My mother stopped me from playing Mario when I was younger. She is still alive right now and the thought of using a sledgehammer on her never crossed my mind. Both me and the kid from this story like video games so what differentiates us exactly?
If this kid was really into television, for instance, and his father stopped him from watching it, do you believe the outcome would be any different?
Personalities. That being just one factor. Within that factor there are many other criteria. You share one known common interest with this kid.
The arguement "I play computer games and I don't kill people" is possibly the weakest approach you could take.RobertFoster wrote: »What if the kid was mad into yo-yos. Having played with one for a week straight, the parents decided to confiscate it. The child's inability to cope with Around the World withdrawals causes him to wait* for his father to go asleep before issuing a sledgehammer up side the head. Would you blame yo-yos?
*premeditation - wasn't a tantrum gone awry
I have yet to come accross a yoyo that encourages you to be violent, aggressive and use malice to obtain your objective. I this case the child was not banned from using yoyo's so you cannot make the assumption that the results would be the same.Yes because people who kill other people with sledgehammers are obviously of sound mind.
In fact, sledge hammer homocide is the epitome of perfect mental health. I aspire to be that level headed.
/grabs a sledgehammer
Again, do you think, for one moment, that you have to have mental health issues to kill somebody? Do you have the ability to conduct a psycho analysis through the medium that is text? No, you do not. You are making an assumption. The kid may be a nutter, he may not be. First thing people will say about this when they hear it is "the kid has some mental health issues, it has nothing to do with games..." :rolleyes: Again, typical behaviour of anybody protecting what they love. It happens in all aspects of life.Because it's normal for kids to kill their parents when their *insert any item here; toys, tv, games etc.* are taken away from them? It's pretty clear the kid has some issues if he'd react this way, it's far from normal.
Is it normal? No. Does it mean the kid has a mental health issue? No. He could have, but this incident doesn't mean he has to have an issue.marco_polo wrote: »Should we ban housework too?
Yoyo case above.Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Well, it's not an assumption, it's a statement which was made. The article implies that this was the kids reasons for killing his father. It's not a coincidence.The West Wing, Iamxaviers argument follows the same logical fallacy though.
I have quite a good understanding of the topic in general, applying logic and taking a non biased approach unlike many here
Mark Hamill wrote: »Yep, it says that if the kid was allowed to play the game he wouldn't have killed his father, ergo we shouldn't stop kids from playing games in case they become homicidal maniacs as the games are the only thing holding them back.
If you have proof of this kid being a homocidal maniac, please submit it. You know, so boards won't be accused of libel or anything of the sort. Not nice to throw around accusations like that
And so the endless debate continues.0 -
Breanna Embarrassed Sprout wrote: »
"Kid kills father because he is prevented from playing games"... Says it all really.
Well, it's not an assumption, it's a statement which was made. The article implies that this was the kids reasons for killing his father. It's not a coincidence.
I have quite a good understanding of the topic in general, applying logic and taking a non biased approach unlike many here
http://www.kpho.com/news/15511792/detail.html
Very similar case. Kid kills father because he is prevented from playing games accessing myspace. Do you link myspace to the violence in the same way?
No?
Hence my quote.0 -
-
-
-
-
Breanna Embarrassed Sprout wrote: »
If you have proof of this kid being a homocidal maniac, please submit it. You know, so boards won't be accused of libel or anything of the sort. Not nice to throw around accusations like thatMark Hamill wrote:Yep, it says that if the kid was allowed to play the game he wouldn't have killed his father, ergo we shouldn't stop kids from playing games in case they become homicidal maniacs as the games are the only thing holding them back.
Em, he killed his dad with a sledgehammer because he wasn't allowed to play Halo. Sounds like a homicidal maniac to me.
(I wonder if you copped I was being a little sarcastic in what I said. I dont actually believe that the kid was only controlling his homicidal urges through Halo, although I do believe that he had some kind of mental issue that led to him murdering his father. I had hoped that everyone would see my post as mocking the same kind of facetious reasoning that leads the anti-videogame brigade to conclude that violence in video games is the only thing that causes events like this. Maybe I should have put in a smiley
) 0 -
Advertisement
-
Should video games not have a warning sticker like on cigarrette packets and with alcohol?Manhunt 2 is, but Manhunt is not.
You can buy a censored version of Manhunt 2 over in the UK. I did a little while back.
As soon as I imported it into Ireland, violent crime raised by 300%. I feel kind of bad. That's just the risk you take with violent videogames I guess.
"May cause you to commit murder"
0 -
http://www.kpho.com/news/15511792/detail.html
Very similar case. Kid kills father because he is prevented from playing games accessing myspace. Do you link myspace to the violence in the same way?
No?
Hence my quote.
Same for yoyo's and other nonsensical suggestions people are bringing forward. Try to notice the similarities and differences between video games (violent and non violent) and other hobbies/things people do in their free time.
I do not see anywhere on myspace where you can hew somebodies head from their shoulders, shoot them, etc etc.When did I say that? I did not. You're trying to straw man me here now.
I am not, I am asking you a question, as you seem to be adament that this kis is psycothic with little or no evidence to back it up, only an action. Taken at face value, most would think he is nuts, but that may not be the case. That is what I am trying to get at. Not everybody who kills is a nutter, or suffers from a mental illness.I said this kid obviously has mental health issues if he killed someone over a videogame. It is not the action of a sane person. I think that's fairly easy to deduce without the need for a psycho analysis.
It's not actually, and without a psycho analysis, we won't know either. You cannot diagnose a patient with an illness if you have not done the proper analysis. If that were the case, we would not need general practicioners, only surgeons and specialistsThe action in the article by default makes the kid a nutter. That's my point. Sane people do not kill others over frivolous things such as not being allowed to play a videogame.
Why? Why must this kid be a lunatic, nutter, psychopath? Because he killed somebody? This does not define a lunatic, nutter or psycopath. One action doesn't make you any of these.Which is more likely? Him being -
A sane person who as a result of Halo turned into a murdering lunatic. (AKA the Jack Thompson arguement)
Or
Someone who already was not right in the head to begin with and then after having a game taken away killed someone in a rage brought on by said mental illness.
Logically, the second one is much more likely.
I am unsure, as I have very little information on the case. If you just want to pass judgement based on what you read from the article, then the first suggestions suits it down to the ground. Yet, in both cases you are being extremely biased. Saying the kid is a murdering lunatic in number one, and in number two he is not right in the head. No option of him being sane? Taking an action outside of his normal personality.I could similarly say your behavior is typical of 'I want to go against the grain for the sake of it no matter how convincing the opposition is just to wind people up' . :pac:
There is a difference between having a controversial opinion, based on experience and education, and defending something out of love and ignorance.
Games blamed for violence/death. Gamers normal attitude/approach is that the killer was already mental, there was no influence from games, and games are just imba!!!1one...
If I am upsetting you with my opinions then there's not much I can do about that, for my opinions are my own and they will change for nobdoy. Although if you feel that I am breaking any forum rules, you can report me and let a moderator pass judgement.
I would suggest you search for my past posts and take note how my stance has not changed when it comes to violent video games and psychology.Mark Hamill wrote: »Em, he killed his dad with a sledgehammer because he wasn't allowed to play Halo. Sounds like a homicidal maniac to me.
Howso? How could the kid have killed his father in a way that would remove the label "maniac"?(I wonder if you copped I was being a little sarcastic in what I said. I dont actually believe that the kid was only controlling his homicidal urges through Halo, although I do believe that he had some kind of mental issue that led to him murdering his father. I had hoped that everyone would see my post as mocking the same kind of facetious reasoning that leads the anti-videogame brigade to conclude that violence in video games is the only thing that causes events like this. Maybe I should have put in a smiley )
Sarcasm via text doesn't work in most cases.
Well, violent video games may be a factor, they may be not, each case is different. Would it be the only factor? Highly unlikely. But I have said all this before in my previos posts 0 -
-
Breanna Embarrassed Sprout wrote: »I am not, I am asking you a question, as you seem to be adament that this kis is psycothic with little or no evidence to back it up, only an action. Taken at face value, most would think he is nuts, but that may not be the case. That is what I am trying to get at. Not everybody who kills is a nutter, or suffers from a mental illness.
Not everyone who kills is a nutter, you're right. However, people who are sane and kill have motives. Be they self preservation, killing because of business, war, theft etc.
Sane people do not kill other people over trivial things. The evidence I have is that he commited an act of insanity.
Perhaps we're using words that are too harsh. Mentally disturbed might be a little better than insane. I'm not saying this type of story = straight jackets and padded cells. I'm saying people who commit such acts aren't of sound mind.
I do believe that violent videogames may push an already mentally disturbed individual over the edge...however I also think that any other violent media can have the same effect.Breanna Embarrassed Sprout wrote: »There is a difference between having a controversial opinion, based on experience and education, and defending something out of love and ignorance.
Games blamed for violence/death. Gamers normal attitude/approach is that the killer was already mental, there was no influence from games, and games are just imba!!!1one...
Sorry but no.
If I hear someone killed someone else with a sledgehammer over something trivial I will assume that person must have been a bit gone in the head..what media they have consumed does not come into it. If this thread was in any other forum discussing any other media I would have the same opinion. I'm posting in this thread because I happen to read this forum a lotBreanna Embarrassed Sprout wrote: »If I am upsetting you with my opinions then there's not much I can do about that, for my opinions are my own and they will change for nobdoy. Although if you feel that I am breaking any forum rules, you can report me and let a moderator pass judgement.
Not at all, I just find it mind boggling how you can seem like a logical person yet think a form of media entertainment can turn sane people into killers. If that's not what you're saying, fair enough. But it's the impression I've gotten from your posts in this thread. Have you got any links to your past posts on this subject?0 -
-
-
Breanna Embarrassed Sprout wrote: »Why? Why must this kid be a lunatic, nutter, psychopath? Because he killed somebody? This does not define a lunatic, nutter or psycopath. One action doesn't make you any of these.
He is a pyscho, he is 14 and smashed his fathers face in with a sledgehammer in his sleep. Clearly missing the bounderies of right and wrong here, which defines a psychopath
If it were a psychotic episode he would have had it there and then when his father took the game, not a few hours later while he is sleeping 0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50625
Sorry Iamxaxiar you aren't being insulted, just losing the argument, badly. All reputable scientific research and publised works on the link between videogames and violence has shown that there is no evidence of a link.
It's just like the massive outcry against the british governments own report into the situation in the Byron report. It published it's own research results showing no link between violence in children and videogames and there was an outcry for rags like the Daily Mail that couldn't accept it.
Basically just like the flat earth society. All the scientific evidence says otherwise but they refuse to accept it.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50625
The Daily Mail managed to rope the mother of the kid killed in that tragedy into it's smear campaign of Manhunt which for me was even sicker than any scene in that game. It ended up that the person that killed her son didn't own the game but it was her son that was killed that played the game. Utterly ridiculous but in the end the Daily Fails scare and terror tactics worked.
0
Advertisement