Really tired of this
Frankly, the statement, "few would argue that young children should be readily exposed to violent material", annoys me almost as much as this congressman. Why shouldn't children be exposed to fictional violence? I always understood that the purpose of play, i.e. imagined scenarios in a safe environment, was to teach children of any species how to act and understand said scenarios when they encounter them.
According to this article, the University of Missouri study describes participants being given the opportunity to "punish" a *nonexistent* opponent. It seems to me that the only legitimate study would require the "punishment" of a real human being, otherwise the context remains the same as the violent video game and, therefore, the punishment still counts as play - hence it is irrelevant.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
