They already had this debate in the 1980's -- that video games were "taking over teenager's minds", that they were "promoting violence", etc., etc. What a lunk

They already had this debate in the 1980's -- that video games were "taking over teenager's minds", that they were "promoting violence", etc., etc. What a lunk of crap! I mean, back then we didn't have 16 Million colors or high-resolution monitors with small fine pixels -- all the games used color palettes of 16 or 8 colors, and they were blocky as hell... like my tank (represented as a block) shot a smaller block (the bullet, use your imagination, work with me here! <g>) into your tank (represented by yet another block of a different color!) and the "explosion" was that the other tank would turn a series of (lame) colors -- and disappear! So my question is, WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE ACTUAL GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF VIOLENCE? -- in these early video games? This is like saying that "Pong" -- made people violent! It didn't! (Well, unless they were violent to begin with and lost a game of pong, and were prone to violence when they lost various games! But those people are the exception, not the rule! <g>) You see, that video games cause violence was a lie back then, and it's still a lie today! <g>