I am not offended by your post, you have a right to post what you want. But I perceive your view to be a poor argument regarding video games, made worse by poor evidence.
First, in regards to your causation/correlation thing, a quote from your first post: “The girl was being controlled by the game, leading to her foul language and aggressive attitude.” Certainly seems like someone besides myself was making the causation/correlation fallacy. Also, when you say “But the effects of games on players’ behavior is proven”, you are asserting a causal relationship.
As for your post containing a very small mention of the negative effects of video games, I vehemently disagree. Of the 11 or so paragraphs in your post, at least 6 deal directly with perceived negative effects of video games. The rest deal with video games controlling us, which also seems to scream “cause/effect relationship”.
And, in regards to your apa link, notice that the research is led by Dr. Craig Anderson, the SAME Craig Anderson whose research has been rejected by every court in the United States (as noted in the Supreme Court pdf, posted again here: http://edge-cache.kotaku.com/kotaku/pdf/08-1448.pdf).
As the Supreme Court puts it regarding Dr. Anderson’s work, “These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning)…Dr. Anderson admitted that the “effect sizes” of children’s exposure to violent video games are “about the same” as that produced by their exposure to violence on television…And [Dr. Anderson] admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner.”
Now you might say, “But I explicitly said that I wasn’t arguing for causal relationships, just correlation.” Fair enough. But I think your language in the first post definitely falls in line with a causal argument, not an argument about correlation. And in your second post, you say, “And nowhere did I say that video games cause aggressive behavior. Correlation does not equal causation. It was merely something to consider because, well, it can happen.” What do you mean by, “it can happen”? Is that, “it can happen that kids play video games and thus become violent?” Because that seems like a causal relationship to me.
“Violence happens, and it’s not solely because[my emphasis] of video games, that’s clear.” But, then, the implication here is that video games are a cause of violence, just not the only one; another causal argument there. If you don’t want to make a causal argument, don’t use language that implies causal relationships. That’s exactly how people like Dr. Anderson end up being discredited.
For someone who doesn’t care about video games, it seems like you want to assert some truth about their effects, based on evidence that’s been repeatedly criticized for its flawed methods of research. I disagree with that, both because of my love for the subject and my desire for honesty. The honest truth is that, yes, video games do, in fact, affect how you behave, and the data supports that wholeheartedly; however, no data is available to suggest that the effects of video games are any more powerful than any other media, hence the whole Bugs Bunny/Road Runner thing and Dr. Anderson’s concession that his research does not show video games to breed killers any more than watching Looney Tunes.
We can disagree if you want.