Violence in Video Games

[Rosbjerg]

Because he is human and not Pavlov's dog.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

funny you mention that, because humans react the exaclty same way when the red light turns on .. although conditioning is remembered and disregarded, when needed, much much faster in us!

[Errantry]

Children and gamers in general should also be intelligent enough to discern the boundaries between reality and fantasy. Face it: you can't beat someone up without hurting them. There are consequences to your actions in real life that there aren't in games, but sometimes, this escapes people. Young children exposed to violent games are more likely to think that they are unique, are given some hidden power that allows them to judge others. They continue to think that others aren't as good as them, because 'in the game', they get slaughtered by the PC.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. Read above.

Have you watched 'A clockwork orange'? In case you haven't I'll tell you that in that movie some psycho is conditioned to have involuntary responses to certain stimuli. Namely, he was nauseated by the sole thought of violence, even verbal violence. Still, the guy rationally loved violence and hated himself for becoming such a wuss.

Granted, the movie is just fiction, but it serves to illustrate my point on how reason, intelligence or willpower aren't enough to overcome the tricks your mind plays on you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, while I have not watched 'A Clockwork Orange', I have read the book. As I recall, many of the characters were rather nutty in some way. And, if the movie is similar to the book, it was set in a futuristic time and place. As you said yourself, the book is fiction, and the man was 'psycho'.

 

A game in itself cannot 'condition' you. There are many people to whom common sense is more important than emotion. You do not kill someone through instinct gained through a video game; people may gain violent or indifferent tendencies, but the majority of murders are planned out beforehand. Unless you're talking about bar fights, but that's another story.

[EnderAndrew]

I believe that adults are to be held responsible for their actions.

 

But what about children? I'm not saying they should be sheltered, but I don't know if I'd let me kids play GTA. I don't mind GTA being on the market, and I buy each GTA title.

 

However, I wouldn't give it to my kids. And that determination of what is and what is not acceptable for children needs to be determined by the parents, and not some governmental agency.

[213374U]

People say that people don't have control over how things effect them.  I say bullsaht because of personal experience.  I am no different than anyone else.  A human is a human is a human.  Sure, people have different experiences, but everyone reacts the same way to stimuli.  Everyone has the choice of of letting their emotions get out of control or they can choose to control themselves.

 

Everyone has the choice.  It is the basis of free will.  If you have no free will, you are nothing better than an animal.  Are you saying you are nothing better than a dog, number man?

Um. Your personal experiences make you different. It is a fact that people don't all react the same way to certain stimuli. That is why psychological studies are made with groups of individuals and not with a single, 'generic', unremarkable individual.

Not everyone has the same force of will, and not everyone's emotional responses are of the same intensity.

 

Again, quit extending your personal circumstances to the rest of the world, it doesn't make for a solid argument.

 

And about the dog... no. 'Better' is too random a concept. No, I'm no better than a dog. More complex, sure. More evolved, sure. But a dog and I are both animals. The only difference is that I have some restraints upon my instincts due to my sentience, but those restraints can only do so much. That, and the fact I wear clothes.

 

213374U .. we agree and you know that .. but have you seen the ending of "A Clockwork Orange"?? it kinda ruined your argument ..  because in the end he overcomes the conditioning!

As I said, the movie is fiction. I'm pretty sure the kind of conditioning seen in the movie is not possible. Given that fact, Kubrick could do anything he wanted with it, because it's something he had created.

 

The details are beside the point however. What wasn't fiction in the movie was that the guy's behavior was restricted by his subconcious, and that subconcious had been tampered with somehow. I just used the movie as an example because it's extreme in that respect, and it made for a good example.

[EnderAndrew]

The movie's ending is different from the book, which pissed off Burgess a great deal.

 

The left out the entire last chapter.

[213374U]

A game in itself cannot 'condition' you. There are many people to whom common sense is more important than emotion. You do not kill someone through instinct gained through a video game; people may gain violent or indifferent tendencies, but the majority of murders are planned out beforehand. Unless you're talking about bar fights, but that's another story.

Another self-righteous post alright. Making such an absolute claim requires that either you are an authority in the matter, or that you provide some proof. You meet none of the requirements, so your point is moot.

 

But that's not the only fact you got wrong in your post. Do some research, and you will see that most crimes are committed without previous planification. Usually people go berserk for some reason and someone dies. People lose control and their emotions override their rational safeguards and moral concerns.

Planned, cold blood murders are in fact a minority, if only because most sane people can't do that unless they have killed before.

 

 

However, I wouldn't give it to my kids.  And that determination of what is and what is not acceptable for children needs to be determined by the parents, and not some governmental agency.

Yeah, fine. But who is going to protect you?

[EnderAndrew]

Protect me? If I as an adult can't make decisions for myself, then who can? How is one man superior to another man in their ability to determine what is right and wrong?

 

The United States (for better or worse) is founded on a blend of democracy (mob rule) and freedom. I'd like to try and uphold those two tenants, despite the fact that they often conflict with one another.

[213374U]

Um, right. Following that rule, you should be able to acquire hard drugs and military-grade weaponry at the local Wal-Mart.

[EnderAndrew]

Well, you can get military grade pistols and rifles, including the M16.

 

And they give out prescription drugs like Secanol which are just as hard as any street drug. It's not hard to get them. Go to a doctor and request them.

 

The 2nd Ammendment of the Constitution guarantees your rights to guns, despite the fact that guns serve no purpose other than ending life.

 

Drugs are a touchy and complicated issue. But as it is, alcohol, cigarettes and prescription drugs are legal. And considering that in many places, drug laws aren't really enforced. You can smoke pot on the streets of Santa Cruz in front of cops. The cannibus club will prescribe it for you.

 

Now do you want to hear how all my family members are drug addicts, how it has ruined their lives, and how drugs have led to other criminal charges in every single one of their lives?

 

I love it when people try to tell me that drugs don't have victims.

[213374U]

Well, you can get military grade pistols and rifles, including the M16.

 

And they give out prescription drugs like Secanol which are just as hard as any street drug.  It's not hard to get them.  Go to a doctor and request them.

OK. But still there are limits as to what you can get, even in the US. You can't get a fuel-air explosive, for example, and AFAIK you can't walk into the pharmacy and get you some crack.

 

I'm not going to turn this into a discussion about your right to own guns, but there's a direct relation between the number of guns on the streets and the number of violent deaths.

It's just another example of why certain products should be restricted or banned altogether.

 

I love it when people try to tell me that drugs don't have victims.

Uh, did I say something of the sort? Because it certainly isn't that way.

[EnderAndrew]

Reread my original statement.

 

The United States (for better or worse) is founded on a blend of democracy (mob rule) and freedom. I'd like to try and uphold those two tenants, despite the fact that they often conflict with one another.

 

You're saying by my logic we should all have total freedom to do whatever we want. That's anarchy. And while some may argue that anarchy is good enough to be law, that isn't the case.

 

Occassionally democracy steps in, and says the majority gets to determine a baseline for social morals.

 

Where do we draw the line for where freedoms are protected?

 

The Bill of Rights covers that. And the 14th Ammendment covers it as well.

 

The 14th Ammendment doesn't directly mention victimless crimes, but it says in principle that we shouldn't pass laws that remove basic freedoms. Basic freedoms can be interpretted to victimless crimes (since there is no crime without a victim) and those rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.

 

Along those lines, I stand up for the 2nd ammendment even though I dislike guns. The purpose of the Bill of Rights, is that even though we disagree with each other, we protect each other's basic rights.

 

Kinda like what that dead French dude said.

[213374U]

You're saying by my logic we should all have total freedom to do whatever we want.  That's anarchy.  And while some may argue that anarchy is good enough to be law, that isn't the case.

The key words there being 'by your logic'. I just pointed the flaw in your logic by extending it to absurd limits. I'm no anarchist, mind you.

Yep, it's hard to tell where lies the line, but if I have to choose between certain freedoms and collective safety, I'll usually go for safety.

 

Along those lines, I stand up for the 2nd ammendment even though I dislike guns. 

You are ultimately protecting the right to murder others, regardless of the circumstances. Guns serve no other purpose than death. The paradox here is that by accepting a State in which your rights are protected, it's no longer your place to 'enforce' them. The State makes sure there will be others to do it for you (theoretically at least).

 

The purpose of the Bill of Rights, is that even though we disagree with each other, we protect each other's basic rights.

 

Kinda like what that dead French dude said.

If you are referring to Voltaire, I very much doubt he would be happy with a Constitution that allows plain citizens to own assault rifles. Honestly, I don't see how owning a gun makes you feel any more 'free', but then again, I don't possess any guns myself.

 

In case you are wondering, I'm not your typical yellow-bellied euro-thrash pacifist slug. In fact I'm studying to take the entrance exams for the military academies myself. But that doesn't mean I like the idea of guns being sold at gas stations.

 

Really, I didn't want to turn this into an argument about this, and I suggest we drop it off here before it escalates out of control. This was a fine thread and I would hate to see it derailed too much.

[EnderAndrew]

Judging from Candide, Voltaire didn't dig guns. Neither do I. You may have missed that.

 

However, you're not pointing out a flaw in my logic. You are either by mistake, or trolling, trying to twist my logic. I said we temper democracy and freedom against each other. You went off saying my logic suggested we have nothing but total logic.

 

That's misquoting me, intentional or not. And I corrected you.

[213374U]

Judging from Candide, Voltaire didn't dig guns.  Neither do I.  You may have missed that.

Yet you protect others' right to own guns, despite your personal preferences and common sense, and compare it to Voltaire's statement about freedom of speech. Can't you see the paradox yet?

 

However, you're not pointing out a flaw in my logic.  You are either by mistake, or trolling, trying to twist my logic.  I said we temper democracy and freedom against each other.  You went off saying my logic suggested we have nothing but total logic.

Yep, I'm trolling alright. Didn't you read my sig? )

 

Now, I thought you meant that freedom is more important that safety, but it seems I was wrong. Since that's not the case, I can't quite grasp your point when you say that democracy and freedom often clash. I mean, that's a known dilemma and possibly one of the most serious flaws of democracy, but it doesn't really illustrate your position or furthers the discussion in any way.

[EnderAndrew]

This is the same dead French dude who said he'd defend to the death your right to say what he didn't agree with. It's not a paradox. I can defend a right that I don't necessarily agree with.

 

And I assumed you were trolling, so I'm not really upset. I'm just playing along.

[213374U]

This is the same dead French dude who said he'd defend to the death your right to say what he didn't agree with.  It's not a paradox.  I can defend a right that I don't necessarily agree with.

Yet comparing the right to own a gun to freedom of speech is a bit out of the line. The statement loses its validity and strength if you change that part. It wasn't Voltaire's intention to claim that any kind of personal liberty is worth dying for. Now it's you who's twisting logic. Not mine, but Voltaire's.

Freedom of speech is universally regarded as a basic human right. On the other hand, the right to own a gun is a relic from the past and it's nowhere near a fundamental right.

 

Despite personal preference, facts and logic, you are still upholding an outdated principle. The paradox here is that you're doing it basing your reasons in wrong premises. It's anachronic, really.

[EnderAndrew]

Touch

[213374U]

Um, OK. Still, I don't think this is the same discussion the thread was about, so I'm dropping it off here. If you feel like discussing it further, open up a topic elsewhere and I'll be happy to troll you there as much as you want.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I think we've milked this thread dry, we need something fresh to argue about. Something suitably abstract so noone can come in and ruin everything by pasting facts.

[Volourn]

" had two trolls at only level 2 Karzak (who is now MIA) and Volourn "

 

I'd be offended (if I actually could get offended " ); but I know you only say such things out of love. Donb't worry, the feeling is mutual. :">

 

 

 

 

[Darque]

[Child of Flame]

" had two trolls at only level 2  Karzak (who is now MIA) and Volourn  "

 

I'd be offended (if I actually could get offended " ); but I know you only say such things out of love. Donb't worry, the feeling is mutual.   :"> 

 

 

 

 

   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

*spew*

[Rosbjerg]

I think we've milked this thread dry, we need something fresh to argue about. Something suitably abstract so noone can come in and ruin everything by pasting facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

true .. but people are way to stubborn to ever change opinion in here! I'm beginning to think discussions are futile ..

[draakh_kimera]

I like pie.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I like pie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I like apple pie. I like eskimo pie.

 

:: plays a riff ::