TA: WATCOs for Research C

I’ve finally decided on a topic for research C. Online gaming has become a problem that has led to tragic deaths every year. Recently, there has been a move to place warning labels on these games. These are my possible WATCO ideas:

WATCO legalizing and enforcing addictive warnings on video-game related deaths?

WATCO implementing addictive warnings on online gaming populations (how else do I say, “the numbers of people who play the games?)

WATCO requiring a legal age in order to purchase online games on gaming populations?

WATCO banning online games on the gaming industry?

WATCO of requiring warning labels on game addictions?

WATCO of online games on mental health?

WATCO of online games on sociability?

WATCO of requiring warning labels on the gaming industry profit?

WATCO of providing rehabilitation centers for online gamers?

Some of these would probably be fairly difficult to write about. I see the fourth one as almost impossible seeing that one can’t ban something because it is harmful to society (if that were the case, alcohol, cigarettes, and media would be extinguished!). These ideas just came while typing—so some of them aren’t so great. I think I like the effects on gaming addictions. What would help game addictions the most? Tax dollars that build rehabilitation centers (like the government does for drug addictions) or warning labels? I’m assuming there will be more information on labels (I could use cigarettes for an example), or the effect of warnings on game addictions. Now for a better WATCO….

FW: Violent Media, Porn, Bloody Video Games...if you think that ruins childrens' minds, maybe you should check out Kindergarten

I heard there was a Stress Management Class available to BYU students. It is two credits every week of lying down on a mat and listening the relaxing music. Neat eh? I need to check into it because the stress of trying to get good grades rules my life. Its as if I was programmed to think that school grades control my life--ever since that tragic kindergarten-day. I remember getting a "fail" on knowing my address when I was merely 5 years old. Even then, my family had just moved to White Fish, Montana, and I didn't even have time to memorize it. Little sympathy was shown to me and my feeble mind, and since then the scar has remained in my mind. Never would I settle for anything for less than my best. Now, sometimes that doesn't equate to what my professors think is an "A," but I really try my best. I remember walking home in biting cold wind that day in 1989, and vowing to never let the school system beat me. I will beat it. That's all there is to it.
I don't even remember the name of my teacher. I don't even remember the name of the school. I can't even remember who my friends were at the time. What I DO remember is seeing that nasty yellow paper, with "pass" check markds in every box, EXCEPT the phone number and address boxes. Permanent. It was written in ink. Never to be forgotten.
I bet they still send that to wherever I apply now in life. Maybe that's why Harvard hasn't sent me my full ride tuition yet. Maybe that's why Stanford refuses to look at my application. Kindergarten. Oooo. Aargh. The word strikes ice cold in my heart. Never will I forget the tragedy done to me that day.
I guess the title of the blog was more of an attention grabber. I guess I should tie this into it somehow. (Steps on soap box) "If you think violence, porn, bloody video games, or bad language have an effect on your childrens' minds...don't be fooled. The strongest influence they will ever feel is that first report card which stamps their heads with success or failure."

RA: Rated M for Mature

This is just a quick rhetorical analysis about the video I shared in my presentation. Sadly, it wasn’t working, so I guess we can all just act like we saw it. You can see at Google Video under, “Rated M for Mature.”

The short clip is about how video games are becoming more violent. The first moments have a “Rated M” sign come over, and a man’s voice describes how video games have now been linked to more frequent violence. Surprisingly, it followed similar “making the contract” techniques we learned in this class. It presents a situation and lures the viewer in to see what is going on. PATHOS is clear—as it informs the viewer of the seriousness of the situation (graphic content always works).

It does present plentiful graphic video games—but fails when presenting its ETHOS. The video does interview a bunch of hard core gamers. But that is it. Just a group of hard core gamers. No opposing side. The video thus becomes slantingly biased. There are no strong statistics or evidence provided by anybody. Just a few opinions about how games are cool and shouldn’t have an effect on society.

Aside from that, things were fine. It correctly brought the issue forward Sadly it only continued to address the side of the gamers, without correctly informing the public of the other side.

TA: Paper B condemned as INHUMANE

The following sentence is the one that mentions the inhumane argument, but I don’t really address it in my paper.

“Supporters of allowing immigrants infected with such diseases plague the courts with words that condemn current law as “inhumane” or “unconstitutional.”

The following part of my research paper B was condemned as “inhumane:”

“Similarly, legislation must be revised to permanently prohibit tuberculosis or HIV carriers at our door and prevent immigrants—infected with any other of the diseases of public health significance—entry into the United States of America.”

I personally thought the sentence was quite strong when I wrote it, but I’m struggling getting around the “inhumane” argument. What can I say? Yes. It is inhumane to stop some individuals from coming in illegally. But, does the doctor who wishes to cure people with leprosy kiss his patients goodnight? No! He can’t. There needs to be some kind of level where we have to say, “I know this is a little inhumane…but for the greater cause, but for the American public health, we say ‘No!’ to the infected immigrants who desire to cross our borders.”

Professor Esplin mentioned that “inhumane” arguments never win. On this account, I will revoke the statement above and work for something else. Should I just completely drop the “inhumane” argument and leave it out of the paper—or discuss the importance of thinking more about the American Health first? Isn’t it inhumane to let a group of children plagued with HIV to play with your children? What if it was someone you knew who contracted the disease due to an immigrant who failed the examination but was let in? Wouldn’t that be just as inhumane as rejecting their entry? Perhaps agreeing that it is inhumane, respecting and showing sympathy to the opposing side, and then reminding the board would be what its priorities are is the better stylistic approach—instead of the bitter cold, logical argument. What do you think? Is there anyway to hop around this argument without being too impersonal or mean?

FW: The whole idea about video game violence

Can anyone deny that watching violent material causes violence? I mean, what is the big deal? Those who oppose are adults anyway, and could buy the games even if they were rated MATURE. There was one fact in particular that sold me on the idea. It was that in the United States, homicides doubled the same year the television was released. Now there could have been some drastic political movement, or some other cause that added to the rate, but to think that it doubled! Undeniably, violent media has an effect.

Now off of that topic, onto a new. Should we limit or prohibit violent video games? If we did, why not limit what can be put into movies? Why not prohibit alcohol, pornography, cigarettes, and every other terrible thing linked to crime? Because it takes away somebody’s right to partake of such things. Thus I stand on the side of: don’t take them away. We can’t. I mean, a sinless world would be nice, but unless we’re going to eliminate some of the bigger factors (alcohol, porn) first, then why pull the enjoyment of someone’s video game pleasure when such a minute percentage of people actually go crazy after playing these games? Enough said. I think this case isn’t going anywhere for awhile.

RA: Video Game Violence

“Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions,” was written by Craig A. Anderson. He immediately opens with his educational background. I had to laugh when I read it. So few articles posted on the web these days actually open with their credentials. His creds, in particular, would silence any opposition! He is received a PhD in Psychology from Stanford University and is currently the Department Chair of Psychology at Iowa State University! The article then lists his various achievements in his 40+ years of studying media violence. All in all, the article does a great job in summing up the fact: argue with him, and you’re an idiot!

His article then goes through and lists the typical myths about video games:

Myth 1: Violent video game research ahs yielded very mixed results.

Myth 2: The studies that find significant effects are the weakest methodologically.

Myth 3: Laboratory experiments are irrelevant.

Myth 4: Field experiments are irrelevant towards aggression.

Myth 5: Correlation studies are irrelevant.

He then goes through one by one, with proof, citing all of his sources on why all of those are false. I have to admit, the article was fairly convincing—Despite the fact that never once does he say: Violent video games cause violence. It seems that he effectively beats around the bush and describes everything but that exact statement. Well done, Stanford graduate, well done.

TA: My other resources for Research B

Here is a quick list of some of the other sources I used for research paper B.

The Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention

The Constitution of the United States of America

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

United States Department of Health and Human Services

United Nations Statistics Division

The reason I picked these as some of my primary sources is because…well, just look at their titles. Is there any more ETHOS that can be established than that? I have all of the top centers in America who are and would be involved in the participation of creating a powerful lobby group to Congress in order to tighten medical screenings. I also included the United Nations Statistics Division just in case. I think it adds credibility to my paper because the UNSD is a division outside of American policies and bias. They provided much of the needed statistics that actually helped me prove the negative aspects of allowing immigrants, carrying any of the Communicable Diseases of Public Health Significance, into the United States.

I did use three articles for the sake of saying that I researched some of the archives (which, honestly I did)—but they just were too opinionated. I thought a new idea would to be including a majority of statistics brought from government agencies, who would provide neutral and reliable statistics for my paper.