Still think kids are not influenced by violent video games?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71206093014.htm
Great article! Too bad so many parents still won't believe it. Even my 13 year old can see the behavior patterns in her friends that play games... 
Hi They,
I see articles from time to time that dispute TV and video violence having an impact. I don't get it , sure seems a no brain er to me!
I really hope we are not raising a generation of psychopaths.
I see articles from time to time that dispute TV and video violence having an impact. I don't get it , sure seems a no brain er to me!
I really hope we are not raising a generation of psychopaths.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Dec 15 2007, 01:55 AM)
Hi They,
I see articles from time to time that dispute TV and video violence having an impact. I don't get it , sure seems a no brain er to me!
I really hope we are not raising a generation of psychopaths.
My fear is we are raising a generation of soldiers.
I see articles from time to time that dispute TV and video violence having an impact. I don't get it , sure seems a no brain er to me!
I really hope we are not raising a generation of psychopaths.
My fear is we are raising a generation of soldiers.
Hi occidental,
Depends what you mean by this. We do need people who are able to defend us under controlled conditions.(?) We do not need renegades in our society.
QUOTE
My fear is we are raising a generation of soldiers.
Depends what you mean by this. We do need people who are able to defend us under controlled conditions.(?) We do not need renegades in our society.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 14 2007, 08:57 PM)
My fear is we are raising a generation of soldiers.
Does anything think that GI Joe and action movies were doing the same thing in the 80's? Or that kung fu movies weren't doing it in the 70's? What about in the 60's, with groups like the black panthers? (they still had GI Joe back then.)
What about the generations raised by those who fought, died and killed in WWII?
What about children raised to shoot guns and take no crap from no-one in the past century?
What about Rome? Rome was sacked and burned, even though it was populated by generations of people who watched the gladiators fight and kill regularly?
What about all the parents now, or anytime in the past who choose not to expose their children to violent media? Do their children grow up to be more peaceful than parents who don't protect their children thusly?
I don't think that violence is something that a videogame or a movie or television show is going to engender in our children. I think violence is going to happen regardless of our children's exposure to it in the media. For some, it will provide fuel for their violent urges, for others it will provide a release for their violent urges, and for most it will be irrelevant.
I might point out that my niece is one of the least short-tempered people I've ever met. She's never struck anyone in anger in her entire life, and she's 26 years old. Despite this, she plays and allows her children to play violent videogames. She watches action movies regularly, horror and sci-fi just as often. She reads war novels...
I know I sound a little incoherent, but I'm rather sleepy, I just had to put my two cents in. Thanks for putting up with me, aimed at all who read this whole post
Does anything think that GI Joe and action movies were doing the same thing in the 80's? Or that kung fu movies weren't doing it in the 70's? What about in the 60's, with groups like the black panthers? (they still had GI Joe back then.)
What about the generations raised by those who fought, died and killed in WWII?
What about children raised to shoot guns and take no crap from no-one in the past century?
What about Rome? Rome was sacked and burned, even though it was populated by generations of people who watched the gladiators fight and kill regularly?
What about all the parents now, or anytime in the past who choose not to expose their children to violent media? Do their children grow up to be more peaceful than parents who don't protect their children thusly?
I don't think that violence is something that a videogame or a movie or television show is going to engender in our children. I think violence is going to happen regardless of our children's exposure to it in the media. For some, it will provide fuel for their violent urges, for others it will provide a release for their violent urges, and for most it will be irrelevant.
I might point out that my niece is one of the least short-tempered people I've ever met. She's never struck anyone in anger in her entire life, and she's 26 years old. Despite this, she plays and allows her children to play violent videogames. She watches action movies regularly, horror and sci-fi just as often. She reads war novels...
I know I sound a little incoherent, but I'm rather sleepy, I just had to put my two cents in. Thanks for putting up with me, aimed at all who read this whole post
Hi BDW,
Your point is well taken, however, I would add a caveat. IMO, the violence we grew up with from The Three Stooges to GI Joe had an fantasy feel to it. Maybe I speak from an older point of view, but todays movies and video games(which of course we didn't have) are FAR more realistic than anything we had. I wonder what that study would show if the subjects were shown more benign slapstick.(?)
Your point is well taken, however, I would add a caveat. IMO, the violence we grew up with from The Three Stooges to GI Joe had an fantasy feel to it. Maybe I speak from an older point of view, but todays movies and video games(which of course we didn't have) are FAR more realistic than anything we had. I wonder what that study would show if the subjects were shown more benign slapstick.(?)
All video games and movies have ratings, why do parents let their children watch movies and play games that are meant for adults? Why do parents allow children to use the Internet unsupervised? Why do parents let children listen to music with adult themes?
It seems to me that lazy and overly permissive parents are the problem, not the media.
It seems to me that lazy and overly permissive parents are the problem, not the media.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Dec 15 2007, 02:07 AM)
Hi occidental,
Depends what you mean by this. We do need people who are able to defend us under controlled conditions.(?) We do not need renegades in our society.
I agree with both those points. I think the problem for me is that it seems video games are more of a back door way to innoculate whole generations to warfare. Dont get me wrong, I love a good 1st person shooter game. But at the same time, in the back of my head is the fact that killing people shouldnt be fun. Did you know the army has developed a video game? Compare that to Candyland.
I do think GI Joe filled a similar role(long before the 80's), along with army men and toy guns and the like. Necessary evil? Maybe. I think that as much as we want to pretend otherwise, human beings dont seem to be peaceful by nature.
I would also add that I feel very lucky to live in a country where military service is voluntary, and I have nothing but respect for those who have decided to dedicate their life to my freedom.
Depends what you mean by this. We do need people who are able to defend us under controlled conditions.(?) We do not need renegades in our society.
I agree with both those points. I think the problem for me is that it seems video games are more of a back door way to innoculate whole generations to warfare. Dont get me wrong, I love a good 1st person shooter game. But at the same time, in the back of my head is the fact that killing people shouldnt be fun. Did you know the army has developed a video game? Compare that to Candyland.
I do think GI Joe filled a similar role(long before the 80's), along with army men and toy guns and the like. Necessary evil? Maybe. I think that as much as we want to pretend otherwise, human beings dont seem to be peaceful by nature.
I would also add that I feel very lucky to live in a country where military service is voluntary, and I have nothing but respect for those who have decided to dedicate their life to my freedom.
Hi Rusty Shackleford
Agreed! Some people have abdicated there responsibility and now blame others. Much of today's entertainment is accessible to too young of an age group.
Hi occidental,
Agreed! Some people have abdicated there responsibility and now blame others. Much of today's entertainment is accessible to too young of an age group.
Hi occidental,
I think the problem for me is that it seems video games are more of a back door way to innoculate whole generations to warfare. Dont get me wrong, I love a good 1st person shooter game. But at the same time, in the back of my head is the fact that killing people shouldnt be fun.
I don't think that is the intent, it just sells. If those products were not purchased, they would go away. There is a violent bent to our society today and the pendulum needs to swing the other way.The classic struggle of good vs evil has been blurred and TV and games play to this.
QUOTE
It seems to me that lazy and overly permissive parents are the problem, not the media.
Agreed! Some people have abdicated there responsibility and now blame others. Much of today's entertainment is accessible to too young of an age group.
Hi occidental,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It seems to me that lazy and overly permissive parents are the problem, not the media. |
Agreed! Some people have abdicated there responsibility and now blame others. Much of today's entertainment is accessible to too young of an age group.
Hi occidental,
I think the problem for me is that it seems video games are more of a back door way to innoculate whole generations to warfare. Dont get me wrong, I love a good 1st person shooter game. But at the same time, in the back of my head is the fact that killing people shouldnt be fun.
I don't think that is the intent, it just sells. If those products were not purchased, they would go away. There is a violent bent to our society today and the pendulum needs to swing the other way.The classic struggle of good vs evil has been blurred and TV and games play to this.
Does anyone here think we should retroactively edit the stories that have survived generations to remove the violence from them? First person shooter games may glorify violence, but try to find me one epic poem, story or ballad that doesn't. In fact, often the oldest of these stories are the ones that glorify violence the most. Look at Beowulf, Hercules, Hatori no Hanzo, even Robin Hood. Violence is an inherent part of human nature. All the realism of current video games and movies does is atrophy imagination in the viewer/player.
Hi BigDumbWeirdo
Absolutely not! There was a moral to be learned which I think is lacking in a lot of todays entertainment. Where is the hero? What is the purpose, except to pile up bodies?
I must admit, however, this is coming from someone who doesn't watch TV or play current video games.
QUOTE
Does anyone here think we should retroactively edit the stories that have survived generations to remove the violence from them?
Absolutely not! There was a moral to be learned which I think is lacking in a lot of todays entertainment. Where is the hero? What is the purpose, except to pile up bodies?
I must admit, however, this is coming from someone who doesn't watch TV or play current video games.
Hi xtrmn8r
Im not so sure about that. My guess is that the strugle between good and evil has been blurry since the beginning of time. I think its dangerous to go down the path of labeling things good and evil, as its often not that simple. But I do agree that it sells. As for our violent bent, I agree that its within us, but do we want to (or do we need to)emulate the Spartans, and start the process at birth? It worked for them.
This is from the US Army's site for their game. To your point about these games going away if nobody purchased them, keep in mind that the army gives this game out for free.
Im not so sure about that. My guess is that the strugle between good and evil has been blurry since the beginning of time. I think its dangerous to go down the path of labeling things good and evil, as its often not that simple. But I do agree that it sells. As for our violent bent, I agree that its within us, but do we want to (or do we need to)emulate the Spartans, and start the process at birth? It worked for them.
This is from the US Army's site for their game. To your point about these games going away if nobody purchased them, keep in mind that the army gives this game out for free.
Nobody knows military simulations like the world's premier land force, the United States Army. So, when the Army began making the America's Army game to provide civilians with insights on Soldiering from the barracks to the battlefields, it sent its talented development team to experience Army training just as a new recruit would. The developers crawled through obstacle courses, fired weapons, observed paratrooper instruction, and participated in a variety of training exercises with elite combat units, all so that you could virtually experience Soldiering in the most realistic way possible.
AMERICA'S ARMY
Launched in July 2002 the America's Army game, which is rated "T" for Teen by the ESRB, has become one of the most popular computer games in the world. America's Army has penetrated contemporary culture and is one of the most recognizable game brands as a result of its unique inside perspective of the U.S. Army and its exciting gameplay. As the game's popularity continued to grow with each of its dozens of new version releases, the Army has expanded its brand through a variety of products including console and cell phone games, America's Army merchandise such as t-shirts, the Real Heroes program which tells the stories of heroic Soldiers, training applications for use within the military and government sectors, and the incredible Virtual Army Experience. In the near future, the America's Army brand will expand with the launch of America's Army: True Soldiers for Xbox 360 in the Fall of 2007 and America's Army version 3.0 next year.
In the America's Army game, players are bound by Rules of Engagement (ROE) and grow in experience as they navigate challenges in teamwork-based, multiplayer, force versus force operations. In the game, as in the Army, accomplishing missions requires a team effort and adherence to the seven Army Core Values. Through its emphasis on team play, the game demonstrates these values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage and makes them integral to success in America's Army.
In keeping with the dynamic nature of Soldiering, the America's Army game will continue to expand and will allow players to explore the Army of today, tomorrow and the future.
There's strong, and then there's Army Strong!
Im not sure if theres a section on the geneva convention in the game or not.
Do you have any idea whats in that food? Now thats something that really scares me.
As for your rant against stupid children, Im not sure where to begin, so Ill just take note of your name and leave it at that.
Everything is a consequence of its previous wave.
Strange,
I listen to very [dark] and angry music and play [really] violent vido games, I also watch mititary-based tv. I consider myself a relatively peacfull guy. Furthermore, violence is a part of our genetic pragramming (especially in men). You can look in your textbooks back to prehistory and find uhg and his wife partaking in acts that (by todays standards) are [really] screwed up in the head. then see the romans, again [messed] up. Now we see people walking around with their psp's, shooting CPU created charicteres. what would you rather have, kids killing imaginary vidio game charicters, or fighting eachother?
-Roan
What if we have both-kids who start out learning about killing as a game, who get to move on to the real thing as they become adults. The army game has been out for about 5 years now. So a kid who was 13 in 2002 is now 18 and possibly in Iraq this minute. Imagine how effective the 8 year olds will be when they turn 18.
The game is rated for teens and above. 8 year olds should not be playing such a game. Again, it is the parents responsibility to "police" their own children.
The army game really isn't a good example of a violent video game.
The game is rated for teens and above. 8 year olds should not be playing such a game. Again, it is the parents responsibility to "police" their own children.
The army game really isn't a good example of a violent video game.
Just as is the case with the Army, the game has a firm grounding in values. The game establishes rules for engagement and imposes significant penalties for violations of these rules.
The army game really isn't a good example of a violent video game.
QUOTE
Just as is the case with the Army, the game has a firm grounding in values. The game establishes rules for engagement and imposes significant penalties for violations of these rules.
from the goarmy.com site
It is not a free for all, "kill them all" type of game.
I agree that the army game isnt really an example of what started this thread, but I think its relevant to the discussion. At the same time, something about the idea that it isnt a violent game seems wrong to me. Although I understand its not a kill them all type of game, war is violent. The act of killing people is violent. By the game not being violent, is it giving a false impression of the inherent violence of combat?
As for what the army has to say about their own game, Ill consider the source. But I will acknowlege that from what little I know about it, I think its designed to introduce children (because thats what we're talking about here)to the "basics" of the army, and to make it look appealing. This game was designed by the recruiting arm of the army.
We are definately on the same page when it comes to the responsibility parents have with this kind of thing. As I said before, I wouldnt want the government to regulate video games. And Im not anti-video game at all, violent or not. I just think the army's involvement in video games is an interesting topic.
I see your point and I agree. I didn't mean to imply that it was not a violent game. I don't think it is the type of violent game that would potentially lead to violent behavior or murderous rampages. It is the type of game that I might play, but would not allow minors in my care to play.
I also agree that it is a recruiting tool. It shouldn't have an effect on children, because they shouldn't be playing it. It is really meant for those of the age that might be considering a military career, so 17 should be a minimum age for it.
My step son's friend (now 19 years old ) had been playing the army game for years. He was very good at it. When he turned 18 there was a knock at the door one day, Guess who? Yes, an Army recruiter. They had been monitoring the scores. (He declined their offer but) The point is, that they know who is playing and how good they are. They even had his high school transcripts. He had been 18 for a few months but the army waited to contact him until after he graduated. The modern weapons are designed to be operated by remote control and the controls are designed to look like games.
G_od, that's CREEPY . I used to play "Urban Terror" a lot. I wonder if they monitor the scores for that? Well, even if they do, I was so cr@p at it that they would make sure never to recruit me 
!
- Gehn
QUOTE
I don't think that is the intent, it just sells. If those products were not purchased, they would go away. There is a violent bent to our society today and the pendulum needs to swing the other way.The classic struggle of good vs evil has been blurred and TV and games play to this.
Im not so sure about that. My guess is that the strugle between good and evil has been blurry since the beginning of time. I think its dangerous to go down the path of labeling things good and evil, as its often not that simple. But I do agree that it sells. As for our violent bent, I agree that its within us, but do we want to (or do we need to)emulate the Spartans, and start the process at birth? It worked for them.
This is from the US Army's site for their game. To your point about these games going away if nobody purchased them, keep in mind that the army gives this game out for free.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think that is the intent, it just sells. If those products were not purchased, they would go away. There is a violent bent to our society today and the pendulum needs to swing the other way.The classic struggle of good vs evil has been blurred and TV and games play to this. |
Im not so sure about that. My guess is that the strugle between good and evil has been blurry since the beginning of time. I think its dangerous to go down the path of labeling things good and evil, as its often not that simple. But I do agree that it sells. As for our violent bent, I agree that its within us, but do we want to (or do we need to)emulate the Spartans, and start the process at birth? It worked for them.
This is from the US Army's site for their game. To your point about these games going away if nobody purchased them, keep in mind that the army gives this game out for free.
Nobody knows military simulations like the world's premier land force, the United States Army. So, when the Army began making the America's Army game to provide civilians with insights on Soldiering from the barracks to the battlefields, it sent its talented development team to experience Army training just as a new recruit would. The developers crawled through obstacle courses, fired weapons, observed paratrooper instruction, and participated in a variety of training exercises with elite combat units, all so that you could virtually experience Soldiering in the most realistic way possible.
AMERICA'S ARMY
Launched in July 2002 the America's Army game, which is rated "T" for Teen by the ESRB, has become one of the most popular computer games in the world. America's Army has penetrated contemporary culture and is one of the most recognizable game brands as a result of its unique inside perspective of the U.S. Army and its exciting gameplay. As the game's popularity continued to grow with each of its dozens of new version releases, the Army has expanded its brand through a variety of products including console and cell phone games, America's Army merchandise such as t-shirts, the Real Heroes program which tells the stories of heroic Soldiers, training applications for use within the military and government sectors, and the incredible Virtual Army Experience. In the near future, the America's Army brand will expand with the launch of America's Army: True Soldiers for Xbox 360 in the Fall of 2007 and America's Army version 3.0 next year.
In the America's Army game, players are bound by Rules of Engagement (ROE) and grow in experience as they navigate challenges in teamwork-based, multiplayer, force versus force operations. In the game, as in the Army, accomplishing missions requires a team effort and adherence to the seven Army Core Values. Through its emphasis on team play, the game demonstrates these values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage and makes them integral to success in America's Army.
In keeping with the dynamic nature of Soldiering, the America's Army game will continue to expand and will allow players to explore the Army of today, tomorrow and the future.
There's strong, and then there's Army Strong!
Im not sure if theres a section on the geneva convention in the game or not.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 14 2007, 10:25 PM)
America's Army Website-The Official Army Game
I have this game installed on my computer.
Hey, it's free. I realize that this is probably a good recruiting tool for the Army, but I haven't joined yet (and don't intend to). It's just a free game that I play when I'm not playing Halo.
I have this game installed on my computer.
Hey, it's free. I realize that this is probably a good recruiting tool for the Army, but I haven't joined yet (and don't intend to). It's just a free game that I play when I'm not playing Halo.
QUOTE (mggb2001+Dec 15 2007, 05:49 AM)
I have this game installed on my computer.
Hey, it's free. I realize that this is probably a good recruiting tool for the Army, but I haven't joined yet (and don't intend to). It's just a free game that I play when I'm not playing Halo.
You sure dont have to make any excuses for it to me. Whats the game like?
Hey, it's free. I realize that this is probably a good recruiting tool for the Army, but I haven't joined yet (and don't intend to). It's just a free game that I play when I'm not playing Halo.
You sure dont have to make any excuses for it to me. Whats the game like?
Video games and the video game generation in general, are a consequence of stupidity and not the other way around. You do not become stupid by enjoying killing zombies in a computer game, you were actually stupid before that. People tend to confuse cause and effect all the time. Violence has nothing or little to do with this at all.
Let's form stupid children who don't think by telling them stories that have a "moral" to be learned. Let's tell them what to do instead of letting them think by themselves. You worry about video games yet you promote stupidity. When kids are not stupid, they will be able to abstract themselves from things, and in the case they enjoy video games, they will be able to tell the difference. And yes, they can be intelligent and play video games too. Even intelligent people enjoy fast food once in a while.
QUOTE
Absolutely not! There was a moral to be learned which I think is lacking in a lot of todays entertainment. Where is the hero? What is the purpose, except to pile up bodies?
Let's form stupid children who don't think by telling them stories that have a "moral" to be learned. Let's tell them what to do instead of letting them think by themselves. You worry about video games yet you promote stupidity. When kids are not stupid, they will be able to abstract themselves from things, and in the case they enjoy video games, they will be able to tell the difference. And yes, they can be intelligent and play video games too. Even intelligent people enjoy fast food once in a while.
QUOTE
Even intelligent people enjoy fast food once in a while.
Do you have any idea whats in that food? Now thats something that really scares me.
As for your rant against stupid children, Im not sure where to begin, so Ill just take note of your name and leave it at that.
QUOTE
I really hope we are not raising a generation of psychopaths.
Everything is a consequence of its previous wave.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+Dec 15 2007, 12:46 AM)
Still think kids are not influenced by violent video games?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71206093014.htm
I've found that, in my school, these games have encouraged more teamwork and co-operation. I guess it's just a matter of playing that kind of game in moderation. Great article!
- Gehn
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71206093014.htm
I've found that, in my school, these games have encouraged more teamwork and co-operation. I guess it's just a matter of playing that kind of game in moderation. Great article!
- Gehn
QUOTE (Gehn+Dec 15 2007, 01:39 PM)
I've found that, in my school, these games have encouraged more teamwork and co-operation. I guess it's just a matter of playing that kind of game in moderation. Great article!
- Gehn
Im not surprised by that. There is incredible potential in the technologies we have created. I agree with the point about moderation, and I also agree that parents are the ones who should carry the responsibility of making the decisions of what is appropriate for their children. I would hate to see this be something the government regulates (especially considering the Army developed their game as the Senate debated the issue of video game violence).
- Gehn
Im not surprised by that. There is incredible potential in the technologies we have created. I agree with the point about moderation, and I also agree that parents are the ones who should carry the responsibility of making the decisions of what is appropriate for their children. I would hate to see this be something the government regulates (especially considering the Army developed their game as the Senate debated the issue of video game violence).
As games get more realistic and violent, I think we will soon see kids (and adults, many adults also play games) getting shell-shock without ever setting foot in a battlefield by simply playing those games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell-shock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell-shock
Let me contribute something that, while not directly related to the topic, illustrates a valuable lesson that I wish more people would take heed of.
Two weeks ago I was watching a debate on CNN. It pitted several people who believed that hip-hop music has made our children more criminal against several people who believed that it did not. On the side of the people who didn't believe that hip-hop has any real effect on children was one man, who pointed out several times (with no disagreement from anyone) that violent crime rates in the united states have been falling since 1980. I remembered this after my last post, and thought "Well, why don't I pull up some numbers, after all, if violent crimes are less common today than before the Nintendo, that all but proves video games aren't responsible for violent behavior in our children."
So I jumped online and pulled up pages like the US Census, FBI's statistics page, the CIA world fact book, etc, etc...
What I found was that this claim was PATENTLY false. Crime rates from 1980-1990 alone went up by more than 50%, and while there has been a more recent drop in violent crimes, we are still not back to pre-1980 levels. (Note that this takes into account the population growth, so there's no real arguing, a higher percentage of US citizens are the victims of violent crimes today than in 1980)
It really goes to show that you can't trust what you see on television, even on a network as reputable as CNN. ALWAYS check your sources. Not checking my sources has bitten me in the @$$ in more than one argument, and it's something that I make damn sure to do before making any claims, these days.
I still don't think that violence in the media is responsible for the increase in violent crimes, I think population density growth, combined with the "American Attitude" is the real culprit, and violence in the media is merely the symptom, not the cause.
I think you don't know what shell-shock is. It is the immediate symptom of post traumatic stress disorder, and it won't happen to anyone who isn't suffering real stress. Video games will never cause it, even if they become so advanced they're like the holodecks on Star Trek, because there will always be a part of the player that knows that no matter what happens, he or she will not be even the slightest bit worse off as a result of playing.
Now, start large video game competitions that become popular to the point where it is considered a sport, and events are broadcast on pay per view, and rake in the kind of money for their participants that professional sports do now? Yes, you'll see people 'shell-shocked' then, people for whom the stress of loosing was too much, but you'll never truly see people with the haunted look of a vietnam vet, who can tell you stories of friends who died in their arms, of how much they have been changed by the experience of playing video games. It will never happen.
Two weeks ago I was watching a debate on CNN. It pitted several people who believed that hip-hop music has made our children more criminal against several people who believed that it did not. On the side of the people who didn't believe that hip-hop has any real effect on children was one man, who pointed out several times (with no disagreement from anyone) that violent crime rates in the united states have been falling since 1980. I remembered this after my last post, and thought "Well, why don't I pull up some numbers, after all, if violent crimes are less common today than before the Nintendo, that all but proves video games aren't responsible for violent behavior in our children."
So I jumped online and pulled up pages like the US Census, FBI's statistics page, the CIA world fact book, etc, etc...
What I found was that this claim was PATENTLY false. Crime rates from 1980-1990 alone went up by more than 50%, and while there has been a more recent drop in violent crimes, we are still not back to pre-1980 levels. (Note that this takes into account the population growth, so there's no real arguing, a higher percentage of US citizens are the victims of violent crimes today than in 1980)
It really goes to show that you can't trust what you see on television, even on a network as reputable as CNN. ALWAYS check your sources. Not checking my sources has bitten me in the @$$ in more than one argument, and it's something that I make damn sure to do before making any claims, these days.
I still don't think that violence in the media is responsible for the increase in violent crimes, I think population density growth, combined with the "American Attitude" is the real culprit, and violence in the media is merely the symptom, not the cause.
QUOTE
As games get more realistic and violent, I think we will soon see kids (and adults, many adults also play games) getting shell-shock without ever setting foot in a battlefield by simply playing those games.
I think you don't know what shell-shock is. It is the immediate symptom of post traumatic stress disorder, and it won't happen to anyone who isn't suffering real stress. Video games will never cause it, even if they become so advanced they're like the holodecks on Star Trek, because there will always be a part of the player that knows that no matter what happens, he or she will not be even the slightest bit worse off as a result of playing.
Now, start large video game competitions that become popular to the point where it is considered a sport, and events are broadcast on pay per view, and rake in the kind of money for their participants that professional sports do now? Yes, you'll see people 'shell-shocked' then, people for whom the stress of loosing was too much, but you'll never truly see people with the haunted look of a vietnam vet, who can tell you stories of friends who died in their arms, of how much they have been changed by the experience of playing video games. It will never happen.
Strange,
I listen to very [dark] and angry music and play [really] violent vido games, I also watch mititary-based tv. I consider myself a relatively peacfull guy. Furthermore, violence is a part of our genetic pragramming (especially in men). You can look in your textbooks back to prehistory and find uhg and his wife partaking in acts that (by todays standards) are [really] screwed up in the head. then see the romans, again [messed] up. Now we see people walking around with their psp's, shooting CPU created charicteres. what would you rather have, kids killing imaginary vidio game charicters, or fighting eachother?
-Roan
QUOTE
what would you rather have, kids killing imaginary vidio game charicters, or fighting eachother?
What if we have both-kids who start out learning about killing as a game, who get to move on to the real thing as they become adults. The army game has been out for about 5 years now. So a kid who was 13 in 2002 is now 18 and possibly in Iraq this minute. Imagine how effective the 8 year olds will be when they turn 18.
Exactly!
Pro-military/government yes-men types will of course respond in such ways. We need armies of young kids who know how to shoot and use new technology, so we can throw them at anyone who we might need to steal oil from in the near future.
Not difficult to work out.
Pro-military/government yes-men types will of course respond in such ways. We need armies of young kids who know how to shoot and use new technology, so we can throw them at anyone who we might need to steal oil from in the near future.
Not difficult to work out.
QUOTE
Imagine how effective the 8 year olds will be when they turn 18.
The game is rated for teens and above. 8 year olds should not be playing such a game. Again, it is the parents responsibility to "police" their own children.
The army game really isn't a good example of a violent video game.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imagine how effective the 8 year olds will be when they turn 18. |
The game is rated for teens and above. 8 year olds should not be playing such a game. Again, it is the parents responsibility to "police" their own children.
The army game really isn't a good example of a violent video game.
Just as is the case with the Army, the game has a firm grounding in values. The game establishes rules for engagement and imposes significant penalties for violations of these rules.
from the goarmy.com site
It is not a free for all, "kill them all" type of game.
Who are we stealing oil from now? When have we ever?
Do you have any evidence of any Iraqi oil going to the US or Britain?
Make a list of the countries that were most vocal in their opposition to the war. Now make a list of the countries that were buying embargoed oil illegally at reduced prices before the start of this war. Compare the two and I think you will find some striking similarities.
It is not a free for all, "kill them all" type of game.
QUOTE
so we can throw them at anyone who we might need to steal oil from in the near future.
Who are we stealing oil from now? When have we ever?
Do you have any evidence of any Iraqi oil going to the US or Britain?
Make a list of the countries that were most vocal in their opposition to the war. Now make a list of the countries that were buying embargoed oil illegally at reduced prices before the start of this war. Compare the two and I think you will find some striking similarities.
QUOTE (Rusty Shackleford+Dec 15 2007, 10:21 PM)
The army game really isn't a good example of a violent video game.
QUOTE
Just as is the case with the Army, the game has a firm grounding in values. The game establishes rules for engagement and imposes significant penalties for violations of these rules.
from the goarmy.com site
It is not a free for all, "kill them all" type of game.
I agree that the army game isnt really an example of what started this thread, but I think its relevant to the discussion. At the same time, something about the idea that it isnt a violent game seems wrong to me. Although I understand its not a kill them all type of game, war is violent. The act of killing people is violent. By the game not being violent, is it giving a false impression of the inherent violence of combat?
As for what the army has to say about their own game, Ill consider the source. But I will acknowlege that from what little I know about it, I think its designed to introduce children (because thats what we're talking about here)to the "basics" of the army, and to make it look appealing. This game was designed by the recruiting arm of the army.
We are definately on the same page when it comes to the responsibility parents have with this kind of thing. As I said before, I wouldnt want the government to regulate video games. And Im not anti-video game at all, violent or not. I just think the army's involvement in video games is an interesting topic.
QUOTE
At the same time, something about the idea that it isn't a violent game seems wrong to me. Although I understand its not a kill them all type of game, war is violent. The act of killing people is violent. By the game not being violent, is it giving a false impression of the inherent violence of combat?
I see your point and I agree. I didn't mean to imply that it was not a violent game. I don't think it is the type of violent game that would potentially lead to violent behavior or murderous rampages. It is the type of game that I might play, but would not allow minors in my care to play.
I also agree that it is a recruiting tool. It shouldn't have an effect on children, because they shouldn't be playing it. It is really meant for those of the age that might be considering a military career, so 17 should be a minimum age for it.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
I think you don't know what shell-shock is. It is the immediate symptom of post traumatic stress disorder, and it won't happen to anyone who isn't suffering real stress. Video games will never cause it, even if they become so advanced they're like the holodecks on Star Trek, because there will always be a part of the player that knows that no matter what happens, he or she will not be even the slightest bit worse off as a result of playing.
Now, start large video game competitions that become popular to the point where it is considered a sport, and events are broadcast on pay per view, and rake in the kind of money for their participants that professional sports do now? Yes, you'll see people 'shell-shocked' then, people for whom the stress of loosing was too much, but you'll never truly see people with the haunted look of a vietnam vet, who can tell you stories of friends who died in their arms, of how much they have been changed by the experience of playing video games. It will never happen.
I was speaking of the future where games become more realistic. The difference between the virtual world and the real word blurs.
Here is a article on Japanese researchers who are creating technologies where second life characters are controlled using the body and brain waves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Our brain takes input from our 5 senses. If these 5 senses receive information from a virtual world which is indistinguishable from the real world, then the brain will not know the difference. The brain will react as if it were in the real world. So shell-shock is very much possible.
The converse may also happen where the brain may disregard inputs from the real world and behave as if it was in the virtual world. For Eg: A few years ago, I used to play car racing games in which the cars had dynamics similar to cars in real life. After playing these games for a few months, I noticed that I had grown a bit careless when driving my own car and was speeding more often. (not to mention that I had improved my driving skills )
Now, start large video game competitions that become popular to the point where it is considered a sport, and events are broadcast on pay per view, and rake in the kind of money for their participants that professional sports do now? Yes, you'll see people 'shell-shocked' then, people for whom the stress of loosing was too much, but you'll never truly see people with the haunted look of a vietnam vet, who can tell you stories of friends who died in their arms, of how much they have been changed by the experience of playing video games. It will never happen.
I was speaking of the future where games become more realistic. The difference between the virtual world and the real word blurs.
Here is a article on Japanese researchers who are creating technologies where second life characters are controlled using the body and brain waves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Our brain takes input from our 5 senses. If these 5 senses receive information from a virtual world which is indistinguishable from the real world, then the brain will not know the difference. The brain will react as if it were in the real world. So shell-shock is very much possible.
The converse may also happen where the brain may disregard inputs from the real world and behave as if it was in the virtual world. For Eg: A few years ago, I used to play car racing games in which the cars had dynamics similar to cars in real life. After playing these games for a few months, I noticed that I had grown a bit careless when driving my own car and was speeding more often. (not to mention that I had improved my driving skills
)QUOTE (vkamath+Dec 15 2007, 07:32 PM)
I was speaking of the future where games become more realistic. The difference between the virtual world and the real word blurs.
Here is a article on Japanese researchers who are creating technologies where second life characters are controlled using the body and brain waves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Our brain takes input from our 5 senses. If these 5 senses receive information from a virtual world which is indistinguishable from the real world, then the brain will not know the difference. The brain will react as if it were in the real world. So shell-shock is very much possible.
The converse may also happen where the brain may disregard inputs from the real world and behave as if it was in the virtual world. For Eg: A few years ago, I used to play car racing games in which the cars had dynamics similar to cars in real life. After playing these games for a few months, I noticed that I had grown a bit careless when driving my own car and was speeding more often. (not to mention that I had improved my driving skills )
Yes, but there is such a thing as knowledge not dependent upon current observation. People take psychoactive drugs, experience a frightening version of reality where walls melt, shadows chase them, demonic faces form in the rain running down the windows. Yet people enjoy this unreservedly. Because they know that their visions of demons and a world melting before their eyes are simple hallucinations. These people could immerse themselves in a holodeck straight from the starship enterprise and never once feel the stress and strain that combat produces. People with no familiarity with combat often do not know what kind of stresses are involved, and tend to underestimate the horrors it took to give a man the condition that used to be called "shell-shock."
SOME people loose themselves in hallucinations when they take drugs, but these people are those with a pre-existing disposition towards a failure to maintain awareness that their senses are being deceived by the drugs. Many of the recently created threads in this forum serve as ample proof that people do not need sensory input to believe in unrealistic things, simple thought is enough for these people. I don't think that psychological issues stemming from their perceived experiences -whether drug induced or video-game induced- can be considered PTSD or shell-shock. Even if it is, the root cause is not their perceived experiences, but their pre-existing disposition towards accepting such sensory input as reality.
Now, COULD such a thing produce PTSD? I think so, yes. As long as the player did not know that he or she was safe and sound, and merely playing a game, -as implied by the last paragraph- then a realistic enough video-game could produce the necessary stresses, and if such a person were deceived by exterior sources into believing the video-game input to be reality, instead of being deceived by their own mental disposition, then it would most certainly be a textbook case of PTSD.
Take as example the high realism of military flight simulators. The only unrealistic aspects of these advanced video games are the lack of horizontal acceleration, and the low resolution textures used in the terrain and buildings. Yet no-one has developed a paralyzing fear of crashing such a simulator that I've ever heard of. It's because the player knows the difference between the game and reality, and as long as someone knows that difference, they need not fear PTSD as a result of playing.
Thank you for the link, by the way. It's a very interesting article.
Second life is, itself a fascinating subject, I think. Did you know there is (or was, a year ago when I read the article and followed the included links) a company that will buy in-game money from players, paying for it with real money? It raises the question of the legitimicy of the cyber community, since one could theoretically make a living by playing Second Life. If I'm not mistaken, IBM has online board meetings using Second Life, and Switzerland or Sweden has an online embassy in the Second Life game-world...
Here is a article on Japanese researchers who are creating technologies where second life characters are controlled using the body and brain waves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Our brain takes input from our 5 senses. If these 5 senses receive information from a virtual world which is indistinguishable from the real world, then the brain will not know the difference. The brain will react as if it were in the real world. So shell-shock is very much possible.
The converse may also happen where the brain may disregard inputs from the real world and behave as if it was in the virtual world. For Eg: A few years ago, I used to play car racing games in which the cars had dynamics similar to cars in real life. After playing these games for a few months, I noticed that I had grown a bit careless when driving my own car and was speeding more often. (not to mention that I had improved my driving skills
)Yes, but there is such a thing as knowledge not dependent upon current observation. People take psychoactive drugs, experience a frightening version of reality where walls melt, shadows chase them, demonic faces form in the rain running down the windows. Yet people enjoy this unreservedly. Because they know that their visions of demons and a world melting before their eyes are simple hallucinations. These people could immerse themselves in a holodeck straight from the starship enterprise and never once feel the stress and strain that combat produces. People with no familiarity with combat often do not know what kind of stresses are involved, and tend to underestimate the horrors it took to give a man the condition that used to be called "shell-shock."
SOME people loose themselves in hallucinations when they take drugs, but these people are those with a pre-existing disposition towards a failure to maintain awareness that their senses are being deceived by the drugs. Many of the recently created threads in this forum serve as ample proof that people do not need sensory input to believe in unrealistic things, simple thought is enough for these people. I don't think that psychological issues stemming from their perceived experiences -whether drug induced or video-game induced- can be considered PTSD or shell-shock. Even if it is, the root cause is not their perceived experiences, but their pre-existing disposition towards accepting such sensory input as reality.
Now, COULD such a thing produce PTSD? I think so, yes. As long as the player did not know that he or she was safe and sound, and merely playing a game, -as implied by the last paragraph- then a realistic enough video-game could produce the necessary stresses, and if such a person were deceived by exterior sources into believing the video-game input to be reality, instead of being deceived by their own mental disposition, then it would most certainly be a textbook case of PTSD.
Take as example the high realism of military flight simulators. The only unrealistic aspects of these advanced video games are the lack of horizontal acceleration, and the low resolution textures used in the terrain and buildings. Yet no-one has developed a paralyzing fear of crashing such a simulator that I've ever heard of. It's because the player knows the difference between the game and reality, and as long as someone knows that difference, they need not fear PTSD as a result of playing.
Thank you for the link, by the way. It's a very interesting article.
Second life is, itself a fascinating subject, I think. Did you know there is (or was, a year ago when I read the article and followed the included links) a company that will buy in-game money from players, paying for it with real money? It raises the question of the legitimicy of the cyber community, since one could theoretically make a living by playing Second Life. If I'm not mistaken, IBM has online board meetings using Second Life, and Switzerland or Sweden has an online embassy in the Second Life game-world...
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 16 2007, 05:49 AM)
Yes, but there is such a thing as knowledge not dependent upon current observation. People take psychoactive drugs, experience a frightening version of reality where walls melt, shadows chase them, demonic faces form in the rain running down the windows.
QUOTE (mggb2001+Dec 15 2007, 01:49 AM)
I have this game installed on my computer.
Hey, it's free. I realize that this is probably a good recruiting tool for the Army, but I haven't joined yet (and don't intend to). It's just a free game that I play when I'm not playing Halo.
My step son's friend (now 19 years old ) had been playing the army game for years. He was very good at it. When he turned 18 there was a knock at the door one day, Guess who? Yes, an Army recruiter. They had been monitoring the scores. (He declined their offer but) The point is, that they know who is playing and how good they are. They even had his high school transcripts. He had been 18 for a few months but the army waited to contact him until after he graduated. The modern weapons are designed to be operated by remote control and the controls are designed to look like games.
Hey, it's free. I realize that this is probably a good recruiting tool for the Army, but I haven't joined yet (and don't intend to). It's just a free game that I play when I'm not playing Halo.
My step son's friend (now 19 years old ) had been playing the army game for years. He was very good at it. When he turned 18 there was a knock at the door one day, Guess who? Yes, an Army recruiter. They had been monitoring the scores. (He declined their offer but) The point is, that they know who is playing and how good they are. They even had his high school transcripts. He had been 18 for a few months but the army waited to contact him until after he graduated. The modern weapons are designed to be operated by remote control and the controls are designed to look like games.
QUOTE (paul h+Dec 16 2007, 12:45 PM)
My step son's friend (now 19 years old ) had been playing the army game for years. He was very good at it. When he turned 18 there was a knock at the door one day, Guess who? Yes, an Army recruiter. They had been monitoring the scores. (He declined their offer but) The point is, that they know who is playing and how good they are. They even had his high school transcripts. He had been 18 for a few months but the army waited to contact him until after he graduated. The modern weapons are designed to be operated by remote control and the controls are designed to look like games.
G_od, that's CREEPY
. I used to play "Urban Terror" a lot. I wonder if they monitor the scores for that? Well, even if they do, I was so cr@p at it that they would make sure never to recruit me !- Gehn
Yes, that's the price you pay for playing a free, constantly updated FPS. Sorry folks, but they want YOU! Actually, interesting thing alongside vkamath's comment about driving skills: The reason the Army tracks your stats through the game, is that they found that almost 85% of markmanship abilities can be a result of playing twitch-FPS. Apparently, it doesn't matter all that much if you've never held a gun in your life, if you've conditioned your brain to understand linear projectile kinetics... you'll be damn good with a rifle after you get used to holding the thing. People without the previous exposure don't become as good shooters. From the Army's perspective, what's not to like!? They get to scope out recruits' skills before they have to spend money on them!
On the Second Life topic... yes it's entirely possible to make a living in it. My friend does so, actively promoting real-world businesses in Second Life. Also, as for the brain receiving 5 inputs... when this happens for the first-person shooter, then you are going to have to worry about an increase in violent behavior. That will SERIOUSLY blur the line with reality. Right now, we are nowhere near that. At least, not in the video games I have seen. Sure, the graphics are gorgeous, but if you can't tell that the environment is fake... You need to get older before playing that game. Sorry, but until I see each leaf on the trees respond to a variable pressure air current, and see the corresponding reflection change in the puddle beneath the tree... It's not real.
Edit: BigDumbWierdo: Given my youthful experience with video games (I'm 20 now), I agree totally with what you are saying. But again, we need to keep in mind all people to not react the same way. I don't know if you've seen the video of the german kid DESTROYING his keyboard as he loses at Unreal Tournament 2004... but that kid has issues. Something to keep in mind as our tech. steps forward.
On the Second Life topic... yes it's entirely possible to make a living in it. My friend does so, actively promoting real-world businesses in Second Life. Also, as for the brain receiving 5 inputs... when this happens for the first-person shooter, then you are going to have to worry about an increase in violent behavior. That will SERIOUSLY blur the line with reality. Right now, we are nowhere near that. At least, not in the video games I have seen. Sure, the graphics are gorgeous, but if you can't tell that the environment is fake... You need to get older before playing that game. Sorry, but until I see each leaf on the trees respond to a variable pressure air current, and see the corresponding reflection change in the puddle beneath the tree... It's not real.
Edit: BigDumbWierdo: Given my youthful experience with video games (I'm 20 now), I agree totally with what you are saying. But again, we need to keep in mind all people to not react the same way. I don't know if you've seen the video of the german kid DESTROYING his keyboard as he loses at Unreal Tournament 2004... but that kid has issues. Something to keep in mind as our tech. steps forward.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Dec 16 2007, 03:04 AM)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD
That is the specific psychoactive drug I had in mind.
That is the specific psychoactive drug I had in mind.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 16 2007, 04:53 PM)
That is the specific psychoactive drug I had in mind.
QUOTE (vkamath+Dec 15 2007, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
I think you don't know what shell-shock is. It is the immediate symptom of post traumatic stress disorder, and it won't happen to anyone who isn't suffering real stress. Video games will never cause it, even if they become so advanced they're like the holodecks on Star Trek, because there will always be a part of the player that knows that no matter what happens, he or she will not be even the slightest bit worse off as a result of playing.
Now, start large video game competitions that become popular to the point where it is considered a sport, and events are broadcast on pay per view, and rake in the kind of money for their participants that professional sports do now? Yes, you'll see people 'shell-shocked' then, people for whom the stress of loosing was too much, but you'll never truly see people with the haunted look of a vietnam vet, who can tell you stories of friends who died in their arms, of how much they have been changed by the experience of playing video games. It will never happen.
I was speaking of the future where games become more realistic. The difference between the virtual world and the real word blurs.
Here is a article on Japanese researchers who are creating technologies where second life characters are controlled using the body and brain waves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Our brain takes input from our 5 senses. If these 5 senses receive information from a virtual world which is indistinguishable from the real world, then the brain will not know the difference. The brain will react as if it were in the real world. So shell-shock is very much possible.
The converse may also happen where the brain may disregard inputs from the real world and behave as if it was in the virtual world. For Eg: A few years ago, I used to play car racing games in which the cars had dynamics similar to cars in real life. After playing these games for a few months, I noticed that I had grown a bit careless when driving my own car and was speeding more often. (not to mention that I had improved my driving skills )
Gamers are going to be able to play more and more realistic games with increasing technology....great thread guys, by the way...and even the wii has people doing more engaged participation, by standing, by maneuvering the body and so on. With holographic tech and virtual reality tech increasing I can imagine how more realistic the games will become, whether the violent ones become the thing of the future is on all of us, isn't it really?
What people expect and accept every day as responsible appropriate behavior is the thing. If we just accept that all our friends, co-workers, family members engage in (whatever) including the games they participate in, forms of violence...we condone it and add to it's allure.
When we stop saying everything is fine no matter how violent things get it will slow up, the violence ceases to be acceptable If we speak up...not to censure but to enlighten (authentically) our human family, they can't help but respect that certain violent games and acts of violence are becoming more and more passe.
We have to speak up that we do not condone young children playing war games, we have to say NO to our own children, based on our principles which they do eventually appreciate, we have to do things that counter violence in the home and outside of it. We have to provide different means to have a good time...and we have to be consistent about it.
Kids are so intelligent, they are sponges for intelligence, but those sponges will soak up whatever they are given to look at, participate in and play with. Who is buying the majority of these games, who provides the money? Who is producing that and so little alternative stuff? Boycotting violent games should be easy for folks when their peers show displeasure with the crap that is being fed to our children. Find alternative interesting games, or provide even better outlets for the imagination of children...isn't it a problem of the lazy adult really...the one who does not care enough to protest and just hands out more dough, surrendering the responsibility we were given to create a better world...by having intelligent offspring?
a whole society providing a different outlet to violence in any form will change everything with such a quickness.
Im with you BDW... the shell-shock (PTSD) will more likely come from the parent who is constantly yelling for the kids to get off the video games and _____________ .
I am sure I've heard of a real-life lawsuit stemming from some questionable circumstance in the game. I believe it is still current.
One thing you can say about Leary, he lived a strong and influential life, he was not dull, to himself or others, he was merely a fearless seeker, and who is to say what is right or what is wrong for such a person. I saw him; he was real sharp, assured, and certainly held himself in front of an audience as well as anyone. All those guys, Watts, Huxley, they were all impressive. Drugs like L are different things in different minds. The mechanism of the drug is the same for all, but how your mind utilizes it - speaks for how clear you are about yourself, and your 'beliefs'.
Defending my position is something I don't have a lot of energy for.
Ok, good to know for the future.
Now, start large video game competitions that become popular to the point where it is considered a sport, and events are broadcast on pay per view, and rake in the kind of money for their participants that professional sports do now? Yes, you'll see people 'shell-shocked' then, people for whom the stress of loosing was too much, but you'll never truly see people with the haunted look of a vietnam vet, who can tell you stories of friends who died in their arms, of how much they have been changed by the experience of playing video games. It will never happen.
I was speaking of the future where games become more realistic. The difference between the virtual world and the real word blurs.
Here is a article on Japanese researchers who are creating technologies where second life characters are controlled using the body and brain waves.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Our brain takes input from our 5 senses. If these 5 senses receive information from a virtual world which is indistinguishable from the real world, then the brain will not know the difference. The brain will react as if it were in the real world. So shell-shock is very much possible.
The converse may also happen where the brain may disregard inputs from the real world and behave as if it was in the virtual world. For Eg: A few years ago, I used to play car racing games in which the cars had dynamics similar to cars in real life. After playing these games for a few months, I noticed that I had grown a bit careless when driving my own car and was speeding more often. (not to mention that I had improved my driving skills
) Gamers are going to be able to play more and more realistic games with increasing technology....great thread guys, by the way...and even the wii has people doing more engaged participation, by standing, by maneuvering the body and so on. With holographic tech and virtual reality tech increasing I can imagine how more realistic the games will become, whether the violent ones become the thing of the future is on all of us, isn't it really?
What people expect and accept every day as responsible appropriate behavior is the thing. If we just accept that all our friends, co-workers, family members engage in (whatever) including the games they participate in, forms of violence...we condone it and add to it's allure.
When we stop saying everything is fine no matter how violent things get it will slow up, the violence ceases to be acceptable If we speak up...not to censure but to enlighten (authentically) our human family, they can't help but respect that certain violent games and acts of violence are becoming more and more passe.
We have to speak up that we do not condone young children playing war games, we have to say NO to our own children, based on our principles which they do eventually appreciate, we have to do things that counter violence in the home and outside of it. We have to provide different means to have a good time...and we have to be consistent about it.
Kids are so intelligent, they are sponges for intelligence, but those sponges will soak up whatever they are given to look at, participate in and play with. Who is buying the majority of these games, who provides the money? Who is producing that and so little alternative stuff? Boycotting violent games should be easy for folks when their peers show displeasure with the crap that is being fed to our children. Find alternative interesting games, or provide even better outlets for the imagination of children...isn't it a problem of the lazy adult really...the one who does not care enough to protest and just hands out more dough, surrendering the responsibility we were given to create a better world...by having intelligent offspring?
a whole society providing a different outlet to violence in any form will change everything with such a quickness.
Im with you BDW... the shell-shock (PTSD) will more likely come from the parent who is constantly yelling for the kids to get off the video games and _____________ .
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 16 2007, 09:53 AM)
That is the specific psychoactive drug I had in mind.
People who have never used LSD should stop trying to describe the depths of what can happen while taking it, in my opinion. It is out of your range, no disrespect intended!
.
People who have never used LSD should stop trying to describe the depths of what can happen while taking it, in my opinion. It is out of your range, no disrespect intended!
.
QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 04:10 AM)
People who have never used it should stop trying to describe the depth of what can happen while taking it, in my opinion. It is out of your range.
That is so funny tikay, because I thought almost the exact same thing when I read this:
:-)
Remember, speed kills.
(and no disrespect intended from me, either!)
That is so funny tikay, because I thought almost the exact same thing when I read this:
QUOTE
People take psychoactive drugs, experience a frightening version of reality where walls melt, shadows chase them, demonic faces form in the rain running down the windows.
:-)
Remember, speed kills.
(and no disrespect intended from me, either!)
QUOTE
Did you know there is (or was, a year ago when I read the article and followed the included links) a company that will buy in-game money from players, paying for it with real money? It raises the question of the legitimicy of the cyber community,
I am sure I've heard of a real-life lawsuit stemming from some questionable circumstance in the game. I believe it is still current.
One thing you can say about Leary, he lived a strong and influential life, he was not dull, to himself or others, he was merely a fearless seeker, and who is to say what is right or what is wrong for such a person. I saw him; he was real sharp, assured, and certainly held himself in front of an audience as well as anyone. All those guys, Watts, Huxley, they were all impressive. Drugs like L are different things in different minds. The mechanism of the drug is the same for all, but how your mind utilizes it - speaks for how clear you are about yourself, and your 'beliefs'.
QUOTE (occidental+Dec 16 2007, 09:16 PM)
That is so funny tikay, because I thought almost the exact same thing when I read this:
People take psychoactive drugs, experience a frightening version of reality where walls melt, shadows chase them, demonic faces form in the rain running down the windows.
:-)
Remember, speed kills.
(and no disrespect intended from me, either!)
for me the example was cartoonish...my trips were total agony and ecstacy...when they were light trips, that is. This is not the thread tho~
People take psychoactive drugs, experience a frightening version of reality where walls melt, shadows chase them, demonic faces form in the rain running down the windows.
:-)
Remember, speed kills.
(and no disrespect intended from me, either!)
for me the example was cartoonish...my trips were total agony and ecstacy...when they were light trips, that is. This is not the thread tho~
I think I may be offended...is my brain supposed to be akin to a fried egg to you since I tried things in my ignorance, dereck?
The thread is on gaming and violence as i said, we are leaving the topic again, sorry all!
The thread is on gaming and violence as i said, we are leaving the topic again, sorry all!
tikay,
It is Derek.
Derek
It is Derek.
Derek
QUOTE (Derek1148+Dec 17 2007, 12:29 AM)
tikay,
It is Derek.
Derek
Oh you~ Not the Comte de Saint Germaine!
okay then!
It is Derek.
Derek
Oh you~ Not the Comte de Saint Germaine!
okay then!
There is a whole lot more than just violence which is unbalanced thinking, just to let you know.
The real thing we should be discussing is "What are we going to do about it?"
We can sit here and talk about everything that is wrong with "society" "these days", but until we take responsibility for OUR OWN actions (AND thoughts), we will still be part of the problem.
So let us take this time to rewire our neuronal nets (pray) into more healthy pathways of Love and Balance. Let us all be quiet in our thoughts and listen to our Energy Within (meditate) for what thoughts we can have which will be the Lightest and the Greatest For Peace to come to our most beloved sphere. Let us quit playing video games!
Our time here is short, so may we use it wisely. A MEN.
The real thing we should be discussing is "What are we going to do about it?"
We can sit here and talk about everything that is wrong with "society" "these days", but until we take responsibility for OUR OWN actions (AND thoughts), we will still be part of the problem.
So let us take this time to rewire our neuronal nets (pray) into more healthy pathways of Love and Balance. Let us all be quiet in our thoughts and listen to our Energy Within (meditate) for what thoughts we can have which will be the Lightest and the Greatest For Peace to come to our most beloved sphere. Let us quit playing video games!
Our time here is short, so may we use it wisely. A MEN.
Walk away from the violent video games sons and daughters....Walk away quickly for they are a poison to your beginners mind!
YES!
YES!
Oh my goodness...I have to ask it is there a gamer drug addiction connection for some of us? I never was a gaming fool so...I wonder why the thread has turned to drugs. Again that video is just commercialism and shows a person nothing about the hard facts. Watch needletown or something like this...hardcore truth...here: PLEASE THIS IS NOT>>>Not for children and rated D for disgusting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KWIZkV2r6s
and found through the same link. Watch that show Intervention on the tele... some drugs are really bad news, we get it but...
But ma says the thread is about the violence in gaming....hey gimme the remote!
Violence on television is another danger to the minds of youth, but we all knew this totally obvious statement. What to do about it...boycott with your remote.
Call congress persons maybe? Some censure is not a bad thing. Censure hardcore violence for a better tomorrow.
Has anyone indulged themselves in that show about a serial murderer named Dexter on showtime? I have boycotted even the commercials since I saw what this show was about, it is disgusting to glorify and make acceptable something so vile and disgusting. It seems they want us to see the guy as a cool dude with a little problem, from the trailers.
The second those commercials come on I am grabbing for the remote to switch channels on that trap of thinking...
we have got to be vigilant about what we will allow to enter our mind-space, if we care for ourselves...same for our kids, do whatever to change the current system...ratings are everything to those jokers putting out this garbage...
stop violence in any way you can on a daily basis
violence is based on fear and need
beginning with our primitive cousins
fear and need If you have nothing to fear and there is not much that you need, you should not even relate to violence at all.
If you are locked in fear or need please get help...it is out here, I have been there.
Let' do something to combat it...what else can we do to eventually evolve into something better than we have today?
(((wow I sound like a commercial)))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KWIZkV2r6s
and found through the same link. Watch that show Intervention on the tele... some drugs are really bad news, we get it but...
But ma says the thread is about the violence in gaming....hey gimme the remote!
Violence on television is another danger to the minds of youth, but we all knew this totally obvious statement. What to do about it...boycott with your remote.
Call congress persons maybe? Some censure is not a bad thing. Censure hardcore violence for a better tomorrow.
Has anyone indulged themselves in that show about a serial murderer named Dexter on showtime? I have boycotted even the commercials since I saw what this show was about, it is disgusting to glorify and make acceptable something so vile and disgusting. It seems they want us to see the guy as a cool dude with a little problem, from the trailers.
The second those commercials come on I am grabbing for the remote to switch channels on that trap of thinking...
we have got to be vigilant about what we will allow to enter our mind-space, if we care for ourselves...same for our kids, do whatever to change the current system...ratings are everything to those jokers putting out this garbage...
stop violence in any way you can on a daily basis
violence is based on fear and need
beginning with our primitive cousins
fear and need If you have nothing to fear and there is not much that you need, you should not even relate to violence at all.
If you are locked in fear or need please get help...it is out here, I have been there.
Let' do something to combat it...what else can we do to eventually evolve into something better than we have today?
(((wow I sound like a commercial)))
QUOTE (tikay+Dec 17 2007, 06:27 PM)
and found through the same link. Watch that show Intervention on the tele... some drugs are really bad news, we get it but...
Drug education is important. Some anti-drug campaigns were effective with children. And some appeared to be counter-productive.
Drug education is important. Some anti-drug campaigns were effective with children. And some appeared to be counter-productive.
I could not help but see this topic, and as it interests me directly, I have a strong opinion. I frequent this magnificent website often, nearly everyday but as of yet have not posted. Now onto that opinion, and sorry in advance if i repeat any material, as I skipped over a few pages.
I am 15 years old, I have played very violent games and have watched very violent media nearly all my life. I have seen nearly everything there is to see. So you can see that I might have a strong opinion. It amazes me sometimes, the stuff that is published in studies. Really, a personality test? I have been submitted to several and have found all quite ridiculous, grant you this doesn't me theirs was. However the thing I despise is generalization. Violent media affects every person differently. And to generalize and say that it affects everyone in a similar matter is astonishingly foolish. Now as my proof, grant you yet again I may be "abnormal." After all I don't know many 15 year olds who frequent these websites. As I've said before I have been subjected to every kind of violent media there is, well almost, and I have been described as the nicest person you'll ever know :roll eyes:. Yes I know, it sounds ridiculous, but I have been told that whatever you may believe, and it's difficult to say such a thing without meaning to boast. As for another piece of evidence, I have been to school of 12 years in total and not one time was I given a detention, that is unless you count one in second grade for which I was falsely of accused of... .
Conclusion
To anyone who did not want to read that. In short I completely disagree with the assumption that every kid is so affected by violent media. It should not be treated a assumption of every child, but should be thought of as knowledge that does not interfere with the take on each individually unique person. Each person should be taken differently. As I say in every thing it all comes down to perception, even the perception of someone else's perception. It is tricky to say the least.
I'd like to say hello to everyone here, and I look forward to your replies. I've perused the forum and found the people here quite nice.
I am 15 years old, I have played very violent games and have watched very violent media nearly all my life. I have seen nearly everything there is to see. So you can see that I might have a strong opinion. It amazes me sometimes, the stuff that is published in studies. Really, a personality test? I have been submitted to several and have found all quite ridiculous, grant you this doesn't me theirs was. However the thing I despise is generalization. Violent media affects every person differently. And to generalize and say that it affects everyone in a similar matter is astonishingly foolish. Now as my proof, grant you yet again I may be "abnormal." After all I don't know many 15 year olds who frequent these websites. As I've said before I have been subjected to every kind of violent media there is, well almost, and I have been described as the nicest person you'll ever know :roll eyes:. Yes I know, it sounds ridiculous, but I have been told that whatever you may believe, and it's difficult to say such a thing without meaning to boast. As for another piece of evidence, I have been to school of 12 years in total and not one time was I given a detention, that is unless you count one in second grade for which I was falsely of accused of...
. Conclusion
To anyone who did not want to read that. In short I completely disagree with the assumption that every kid is so affected by violent media. It should not be treated a assumption of every child, but should be thought of as knowledge that does not interfere with the take on each individually unique person. Each person should be taken differently. As I say in every thing it all comes down to perception, even the perception of someone else's perception. It is tricky to say the least.
I'd like to say hello to everyone here, and I look forward to your replies. I've perused the forum and found the people here quite nice.
An Interested Poster:
My apologies, but being a 15 year old perusing this kind of site, I think you have firmly stepped outside the boundaries of "normal." And for the record, I would agree wholeheartedly with your statements. At 20, considering myself well-adjusted, and having played LOTS of ridiculously violent games... I find it amazing that this is even an issue today. I have the sinking feeling that the violent episodes occurring in our society today are being falsely linked to video games, and in the process perhaps masking a far more terrifying issue at hand. I don't know what it is, but I am SURE the parents just need to shape up a bit more, and the prevalence of these incidents will decline.
That said, tikay: I'd never heard of what Dexter was all about, but sounds pretty nasty. Still, whatever gets the ratings, eh? I would venture to say it falls to the parents to ensure that the younguns are not watching the 18A stuff.
Man, I'd love to go on, but I should really get some sleep. Gnight all.
My apologies, but being a 15 year old perusing this kind of site, I think you have firmly stepped outside the boundaries of "normal."
And for the record, I would agree wholeheartedly with your statements. At 20, considering myself well-adjusted, and having played LOTS of ridiculously violent games... I find it amazing that this is even an issue today. I have the sinking feeling that the violent episodes occurring in our society today are being falsely linked to video games, and in the process perhaps masking a far more terrifying issue at hand. I don't know what it is, but I am SURE the parents just need to shape up a bit more, and the prevalence of these incidents will decline. That said, tikay: I'd never heard of what Dexter was all about, but sounds pretty nasty. Still, whatever gets the ratings, eh? I would venture to say it falls to the parents to ensure that the younguns are not watching the 18A stuff.
Man, I'd love to go on, but I should really get some sleep. Gnight all.
The video games improve hand-eye coordination. Makes them better soldiers.
Hi,A Interested Poster,bmcghie and all,
The point is not for those of you who understand that violence, sex and general mayhem on the screen is fantasy and unreal. It is that there is a minority of those who blur the lines and twist off by reenacting what they have seen. Violence has been commonplace since the dawn of man, but I don't think that it should be spoon fed to those unable to differentiate fantasy.
The point is not for those of you who understand that violence, sex and general mayhem on the screen is fantasy and unreal. It is that there is a minority of those who blur the lines and twist off by reenacting what they have seen. Violence has been commonplace since the dawn of man, but I don't think that it should be spoon fed to those unable to differentiate fantasy.
Exactly xtrmn8r, it should instead be based on the person, it is not for everyone but neither should it be the one all answer. I agree those who cannot differentiate between fantasy and "real" or have shown a history of "bad" choices should probably not be spoon fed violence.
To Derek1148, Sports also improve hand-eye coordination, in turn making them better soldiers
To bmcghie, Yes, I suppose I have stepped out of the realm of normal . In regards to that show Dexter, I have indeed seen it, but I have found the show to be distasteful at least as far as my perception.
I suppose again everything comes to perception, the parents perception of the child, the child's perception of his/her world around them and the perceptions of other peoples perceptions. And in turn many misconceptions. All influencing choices. Everything is relative....Which makes it really really hard...
To Derek1148, Sports also improve hand-eye coordination, in turn making them better soldiers
To bmcghie, Yes, I suppose I have stepped out of the realm of normal
. In regards to that show Dexter, I have indeed seen it, but I have found the show to be distasteful at least as far as my perception. I suppose again everything comes to perception, the parents perception of the child, the child's perception of his/her world around them and the perceptions of other peoples perceptions. And in turn many misconceptions. All influencing choices. Everything is relative....Which makes it really really hard...
Hi, A Interested Poster
This statement says it all..This is precisely why children should be shielded from things which skew their perception of reality until such time as they are able to understand. Since people vary in their intellectual abilities, a norm must be found and that norm, says society, is 18 yo.!
QUOTE
I suppose again everything comes to perception, the parents perception of the child, the child's perception of his/her world around them and the perceptions of other peoples perceptions. And in turn many misconceptions. All influencing choices. Everything is relative....Which makes it really really hard...
This statement says it all..This is precisely why children should be shielded from things which skew their perception of reality until such time as they are able to understand. Since people vary in their intellectual abilities, a norm must be found and that norm, says society, is 18 yo.!
Yes, it's lovely that we have that 18yr old limit on a lot of things... but then we get to the whole adherence/policing issue. The parents cry that the government needs to do better, and the government laments that the parents get more and more lazy about raising their own children!
I had a whole couple of other paragraphs about parental responsibility, or lack-thereof, but I realized I was going wayyy off topic. So, I'll just state that I think that the solution to this problem is in the parents hands. As a society, yes we seem to be getting a bit bloodthirsty or late, but this could still be dealt with by the parents, assuming they are communicating effectively with their kids.
Thoughts?
I had a whole couple of other paragraphs about parental responsibility, or lack-thereof, but I realized I was going wayyy off topic. So, I'll just state that I think that the solution to this problem is in the parents hands. As a society, yes we seem to be getting a bit bloodthirsty or late, but this could still be dealt with by the parents, assuming they are communicating effectively with their kids.
Thoughts?
Remember xtrmn8r I'm 15, and I would find such a restriction unfair. I understand where you come from, but it's odd that we can skew a perception of reality, when the only truths, at least as far as I understand it, are absolute scientific laws, and even we're not sure that they work under all circumstances. This makes "reality" the generaly accepted perception of it. I suppose the most important thing in a society is the belief that "the sky's the limit" a phrase sorely lacking to quite a few adolescents I know. If we are limited becuase we dont have the knowledge to work and become "succesful" then at least tell us that, and not just becuase we are children. I have noted behavior in "adults" that could easily be construed as childish.
Sorry if I begin to rant, it is difficult to find the right words to express my thoughts and ideas in full. And I am quite passionate about this, so it is important that you all understand I mean no disrespect even should my words become "heated".
Just like to put that out there. I know I'm forgetting something...
Also, I would like your thoughts, did you think I was starting to rant? Did you think I was getting angry? Did you think nothing of it and find the second paragraph odd, or perhaps this one? Maybe I should make a poll...
Sorry if I begin to rant, it is difficult to find the right words to express my thoughts and ideas in full. And I am quite passionate about this, so it is important that you all understand I mean no disrespect even should my words become "heated".
Just like to put that out there. I know I'm forgetting something...
Also, I would like your thoughts, did you think I was starting to rant? Did you think I was getting angry? Did you think nothing of it and find the second paragraph odd, or perhaps this one?
Maybe I should make a poll...
Hi, bmcghie..all,
I think you are mostly correct. IMO, tho', we as a society and as parents have tried to hard to be friends with our children instead of mentors. We have talked, instructed, communicated and conned our kids until we failed them. They have pushed the boundaries and adults have relented. The government should not be in the position of monitoring what kids see, wear or play. Parents have abdicated their responsibilities to schools, churches or government programs.
I think you are mostly correct. IMO, tho', we as a society and as parents have tried to hard to be friends with our children instead of mentors. We have talked, instructed, communicated and conned our kids until we failed them. They have pushed the boundaries and adults have relented. The government should not be in the position of monitoring what kids see, wear or play. Parents have abdicated their responsibilities to schools, churches or government programs.
xtrmn8r, Parents have not abdicated their responsibilities to schools, churches or government programs, they have not LEARNED HOW TO PARENT their children. 
Consistency in disciplinary actions will take away a child's propensity to "test" their limits. Adults can not relent. If a child misbehaves, the level of punishment must match the level of the transgression and be consistent. I had a strict upbringing and am glad for it. My father did what was right and best for us. My "evil" oldest brother somehow picked up a bullying trait, then learned how to avoid being caught and bullied us younger ones not to tell. 
He did fail first grade before he acquired his ability to not be caught. These types need to be caught and disciplined, severely if necessary to eliminate the serious troubles they cause. My eldest brother gave me Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.) as a result of serious and ongoing sibling rivalry. This is usually caused by the stresses of combat or other persistant highly stressful situations. Had his behavior been discovered and eliminated by whatever means necessary, a lot of pain and suffering by me, and the countless others he abused would never have occurred.
The improvement of hand-eye coordination is good for many things other than soldiering. I can't understand your constant references to war and killing. I enjoy playing pool, tennis and bowling, not using weapons and killing people. The last video games I played were Pong and Pac-Man. I had better, more enjoyable times with friends, directly relating face-to-face while playing billiards and other sports, not sitting alone playing games on a T.V. screen. I've done Civil War re-enactment, a harmless way to shoot guns and have fun. Ever fired a .50 caliber Hawkins black powder muzzle-loader before?
Consistency in disciplinary actions will take away a child's propensity to "test" their limits. Adults can not relent. If a child misbehaves, the level of punishment must match the level of the transgression and be consistent. I had a strict upbringing and am glad for it. My father did what was right and best for us. My "evil" oldest brother somehow picked up a bullying trait, then learned how to avoid being caught and bullied us younger ones not to tell. He did fail first grade before he acquired his ability to not be caught. These types need to be caught and disciplined, severely if necessary to eliminate the serious troubles they cause. My eldest brother gave me Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.) as a result of serious and ongoing sibling rivalry. This is usually caused by the stresses of combat or other persistant highly stressful situations. Had his behavior been discovered and eliminated by whatever means necessary, a lot of pain and suffering by me, and the countless others he abused would never have occurred.QUOTE
"The video games improve hand-eye coordination. Makes them better soldiers."
Derek1148 quote.The improvement of hand-eye coordination is good for many things other than soldiering. I can't understand your constant references to war and killing.
I enjoy playing pool, tennis and bowling, not using weapons and killing people. The last video games I played were Pong and Pac-Man. I had better, more enjoyable times with friends, directly relating face-to-face while playing billiards and other sports, not sitting alone playing games on a T.V. screen. I've done Civil War re-enactment, a harmless way to shoot guns and have fun. Ever fired a .50 caliber Hawkins black powder muzzle-loader before?
QUOTE (photojack+Jan 9 2008, 04:31 PM)
I've done Civil War re-enactment, a harmless way to shoot guns and have fun. Ever fired a .50 caliber Hawkins black powder muzzle-loader before?
No, but it sounds interesting. I do enjoy firing the .50 caliber BMG. Very effective round.
No, but it sounds interesting. I do enjoy firing the .50 caliber BMG. Very effective round.
QUOTE (A Interested Poster+Jan 2 2008, 04:35 PM)
Remember xtrmn8r I'm 15, and I would find such a restriction unfair. I understand where you come from, but it's odd that we can skew a perception of reality, when the only truths, at least as far as I understand it, are absolute scientific laws, and even we're not sure that they work under all circumstances. This makes "reality" the generaly accepted perception of it. I suppose the most important thing in a society is the belief that "the sky's the limit" a phrase sorely lacking to quite a few adolescents I know. If we are limited becuase we dont have the knowledge to work and become "succesful" then at least tell us that, and not just becuase we are children. I have noted behavior in "adults" that could easily be construed as childish.
Sorry if I begin to rant, it is difficult to find the right words to express my thoughts and ideas in full. And I am quite passionate about this, so it is important that you all understand I mean no disrespect even should my words become "heated".
Just like to put that out there. I know I'm forgetting something...
Also, I would like your thoughts, did you think I was starting to rant? Did you think I was getting angry? Did you think nothing of it and find the second paragraph odd, or perhaps this one? Maybe I should make a poll...
Hi Interested Poster,
I must say I am impressed with yet another 15 year old poster! Great to have you begin to post. It seems you are saying that we should not tell children that "the sky is the limit" if things are going to be rough for them, right? I agree...not everyone is going to be astronaut material There is so much wrong with the way we parent these days I cannot even begin to get started. I believe in the rights of children to have some basic happy times in life and to be taught what interests them most firstly and secondly, everything else we can squeeze in that is necessary for growth...violence is not a very necessary subject but it is a reality.
I do not agree we should teach it on television to children. Since I was very very young I asked why they shared so much information about how to conduct crimes to just the general public. i knew already that this was not very wise for a country to allow.
And you are right perception is everything!
As a tiny child I was most interested in the religious...I wanted to learn about God in school (probably an unusual child) and I could not figure out why...as far as I was concerned they were leaving out the most important thing in life (to me) when they gave us lessons...I was in public school. I was disappointed and just didn't understand it. Later on I loved learning about the various religions (on my own) and studying the "esoteric", another thing that had little to do with school. I was a good student making very good grades and homework was a breeze. But the public schools were a huge disappointment and they moved much to slowly! I got so frustrated in 11th ( I was so bored) and I decided to quit school. That was 1979.
We didn't play video games in those days...well Pac-man at the place we hung out, and loads of pin-ball...not too violent those!
Violence on television was something I had grown very much accustomed to but disagreed with in principle as a way to waste time. We did a lot of hiking in the mountains and smoking weed...those were the times. We visited friends all the time to "shoot the bull"...loads of deep conversations. And light ones. But we talked and talked. I don't see kids talking much these days while they play those games...just, "Bwa ha ha I got you!" and non-sense like that. I think it is a really bad change and is not progression! Since I believe inherently that man is meant to evolve...I am against this phenomenon!
Violent or not...people are sitting on their butts too much, chasing games around...doing nothing progressive, having less and less conversations...losing sleep, and so on over these silly gaming moments. So what if it increases hand and eye co-ordination....so does getting out and climbing a tree or a mountain, riding a bike, skateboarding and swimming and playing sports and having real moments in time...doing what people did before these games surfaced.
My sons were of this generation , but me I got my boys games like sonic the hedgehog....and they had to play non-violent games forever...I finally once bought them Tekken II as they got older because I do think they were well balanced and it was martial arts after all...when they earned their own money they usually bought themselves basketball and football games...better and better ones and some driving and some shooting games.
But they weren't out of balance like some kids. The time they spent playing sports was substantial. They were never over weight! Loads of activities kept them from an out-of-balance state. This is more how it should be for kids. Less violence is a boost to the esteem. Notice how self-esteem arises from doing rather than being good at a game. Even taking out the trash for your family is better for your esteem than winning at a game. Because games are exactly that...games...they are not really REAL. What is real is contributing to society in whatever capacity. It starts with family and branches out from there.
My esteem came from menial jobs I got from the age of fifteen, never from being good at games, (I was very good at work) I got excellent incentives to keep working...lots of pats on the back and pay as well. I loved working, it was better than getting good grades at school. I could spend money on whatever i wanted, I had earned it!
I am getting off track here....violence in the media is out-of-control, having a show about a serial murderer, that we are supposed to like or relate to, shows me this. That show Dexter is really going too far and I prohibit myself from viewing crap like that on television, hopefully it sends a message if everyone will turn it off or change a channel when they see really un-called for violence on t.v. programming.
Of course some movies I have loved have had a lot of violence in them, but there was always a message about that violence within, i can think of two favorites just now...Pulp fiction and The Professional. They were a reflection of something going on that needs be changed in life, and they were showing the dangers of violence as well...with a moral to the stories... a moral is not visible in many of todays shows, the main codex seems to be that the world is violent...but the world is also countless other things so why so much focus on the one subject?
whew~ I best stop here...for I could go on and on and...well it's enough for now!
Sorry if I begin to rant, it is difficult to find the right words to express my thoughts and ideas in full. And I am quite passionate about this, so it is important that you all understand I mean no disrespect even should my words become "heated".
Just like to put that out there. I know I'm forgetting something...
Also, I would like your thoughts, did you think I was starting to rant? Did you think I was getting angry? Did you think nothing of it and find the second paragraph odd, or perhaps this one?
Maybe I should make a poll... Hi Interested Poster,
I must say I am impressed with yet another 15 year old poster! Great to have you begin to post. It seems you are saying that we should not tell children that "the sky is the limit" if things are going to be rough for them, right? I agree...not everyone is going to be astronaut material
There is so much wrong with the way we parent these days I cannot even begin to get started. I believe in the rights of children to have some basic happy times in life and to be taught what interests them most firstly and secondly, everything else we can squeeze in that is necessary for growth...violence is not a very necessary subject but it is a reality.I do not agree we should teach it on television to children. Since I was very very young I asked why they shared so much information about how to conduct crimes to just the general public. i knew already that this was not very wise for a country to allow.
And you are right perception is everything!
As a tiny child I was most interested in the religious...I wanted to learn about God in school (probably an unusual child) and I could not figure out why...as far as I was concerned they were leaving out the most important thing in life (to me) when they gave us lessons...I was in public school. I was disappointed and just didn't understand it. Later on I loved learning about the various religions (on my own) and studying the "esoteric", another thing that had little to do with school. I was a good student making very good grades and homework was a breeze. But the public schools were a huge disappointment and they moved much to slowly! I got so frustrated in 11th ( I was so bored) and I decided to quit school. That was 1979.
We didn't play video games in those days...well Pac-man at the place we hung out, and loads of pin-ball...not too violent those!
Violence on television was something I had grown very much accustomed to but disagreed with in principle as a way to waste time. We did a lot of hiking in the mountains and smoking weed...those were the times. We visited friends all the time to "shoot the bull"...loads of deep conversations. And light ones. But we talked and talked. I don't see kids talking much these days while they play those games...just, "Bwa ha ha I got you!" and non-sense like that. I think it is a really bad change and is not progression! Since I believe inherently that man is meant to evolve...I am against this phenomenon!
Violent or not...people are sitting on their butts too much, chasing games around...doing nothing progressive, having less and less conversations...losing sleep, and so on over these silly gaming moments. So what if it increases hand and eye co-ordination....so does getting out and climbing a tree or a mountain, riding a bike, skateboarding and swimming and playing sports and having real moments in time...doing what people did before these games surfaced.
My sons were of this generation , but me I got my boys games like sonic the hedgehog....and they had to play non-violent games forever...I finally once bought them Tekken II as they got older because I do think they were well balanced and it was martial arts after all...when they earned their own money they usually bought themselves basketball and football games...better and better ones and some driving and some shooting games.
But they weren't out of balance like some kids. The time they spent playing sports was substantial. They were never over weight! Loads of activities kept them from an out-of-balance state. This is more how it should be for kids. Less violence is a boost to the esteem. Notice how self-esteem arises from doing rather than being good at a game. Even taking out the trash for your family is better for your esteem than winning at a game. Because games are exactly that...games...they are not really REAL. What is real is contributing to society in whatever capacity. It starts with family and branches out from there.
My esteem came from menial jobs I got from the age of fifteen, never from being good at games, (I was very good at work) I got excellent incentives to keep working...lots of pats on the back and pay as well. I loved working, it was better than getting good grades at school. I could spend money on whatever i wanted, I had earned it!
I am getting off track here....violence in the media is out-of-control, having a show about a serial murderer, that we are supposed to like or relate to, shows me this. That show Dexter is really going too far and I prohibit myself from viewing crap like that on television, hopefully it sends a message if everyone will turn it off or change a channel when they see really un-called for violence on t.v. programming.
Of course some movies I have loved have had a lot of violence in them, but there was always a message about that violence within, i can think of two favorites just now...Pulp fiction and The Professional. They were a reflection of something going on that needs be changed in life, and they were showing the dangers of violence as well...with a moral to the stories... a moral is not visible in many of todays shows, the main codex seems to be that the world is violent...but the world is also countless other things so why so much focus on the one subject?
whew~ I best stop here...for I could go on and on and...well it's enough for now!
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 01:31 PM)
Since I was very very young I asked why they shared so much information about how to conduct crimes to just the general public. i knew already that this was not very wise for a country to allow.
I disagree. The techniques used in various crimes were invented by criminals, thus proving that a lack of knowledge of them does not prevent the crimes they aid in. On the other side, if you knew that wiping one's rear bumber down with butter and coating it in corn starch was a method of making a bank heist go more successfully, and you saw someone doing exactly that one day, don't you think you could call the police and alert them to this behavior, which isn't illegal per se, but strongly suggests a future illegal activity? (Note: This behavior has nothing to do with robbing a bank in the real world, I simply made it up as an example.)
All in all, I think one of the few truths in philosophy that applies equally well all across the spectrum is "Knowledge is Power." And I don't wish to sacrifice any knowledge for the sake of safety.
I disagree. The techniques used in various crimes were invented by criminals, thus proving that a lack of knowledge of them does not prevent the crimes they aid in. On the other side, if you knew that wiping one's rear bumber down with butter and coating it in corn starch was a method of making a bank heist go more successfully, and you saw someone doing exactly that one day, don't you think you could call the police and alert them to this behavior, which isn't illegal per se, but strongly suggests a future illegal activity? (Note: This behavior has nothing to do with robbing a bank in the real world, I simply made it up as an example.)
All in all, I think one of the few truths in philosophy that applies equally well all across the spectrum is "Knowledge is Power." And I don't wish to sacrifice any knowledge for the sake of safety.
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 06:31 PM)
Since I was very very young I asked why they shared so much information about how to conduct crimes to just the general public. i knew already that this was not very wise for a country to allow.
As a general rule of thumb, I think the suppression of knowledge is a bad idea.
As a general rule of thumb, I think the suppression of knowledge is a bad idea.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 9 2008, 11:42 AM)
I disagree. The techniques used in various crimes were invented by criminals, thus proving that a lack of knowledge of them does not prevent the crimes they aid in. On the other side, if you knew that wiping one's rear bumber down with butter and coating it in corn starch was a method of making a bank heist go more successfully, and you saw someone doing exactly that one day, don't you think you could call the police and alert them to this behavior, which isn't illegal per se, but strongly suggests a future illegal activity? (Note: This behavior has nothing to do with robbing a bank in the real world, I simply made it up as an example.)
All in all, I think one of the few truths in philosophy that applies equally well all across the spectrum is "Knowledge is Power." And I don't wish to sacrifice any knowledge for the sake of safety.
Okay...I have to say I am very interested in why you think it is okay to show how to lets say pull of a bank heist?
Take Oceans Eleven for instance....the way they organized the schematics and the way they executed the crime were laid out pretty step-by-step...just as in many shows I watched as I grew up.... It taught one how to better execute crimes. How is that a good thing?
All in all, I think one of the few truths in philosophy that applies equally well all across the spectrum is "Knowledge is Power." And I don't wish to sacrifice any knowledge for the sake of safety.
Okay...I have to say I am very interested in why you think it is okay to show how to lets say pull of a bank heist?
Take Oceans Eleven for instance....the way they organized the schematics and the way they executed the crime were laid out pretty step-by-step...just as in many shows I watched as I grew up.... It taught one how to better execute crimes. How is that a good thing?
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 9 2008, 12:11 PM)
As a general rule of thumb, I think the suppression of knowledge is a bad idea.
But knowledge of the evils in the world is too rampant...while suppression of the beautiful and great things in the world seems to be quite in tact.
Just look at the news....media will cover all the things that are wrong with celebrity...and hardly ever focus on all the ways celebrity's help change the world.
It will focus on all the killing and very little that is heroic....this needs to be examined and possibly re-worked!
But knowledge of the evils in the world is too rampant...while suppression of the beautiful and great things in the world seems to be quite in tact.
Just look at the news....media will cover all the things that are wrong with celebrity...and hardly ever focus on all the ways celebrity's help change the world.
It will focus on all the killing and very little that is heroic....this needs to be examined and possibly re-worked!
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 07:32 PM)
Okay...I have to say I am very interested in why you think it is okay to show how to lets say pull of a bank heist?
Take Oceans Eleven for instance....the way they organized the schematics and the way they executed the crime were laid out pretty step-by-step...just as in many shows I watched as I grew up.... It taught one how to better execute crimes. How is that a good thing?
Thats easy--if you own a casino, or a bank, then you know what to look out for. Ever see the tv show "it takes a thief", where a guy breaks into peoples homes? DId you know that show is produced by Alstate, the home insurance company?
Heres another very real example-The government knew terrorists wanted to use airplanes to attack us. But the government decided not to let the airlines know, or the public, so nobody except the government expected it. Remember how that worked out?
Now I have to say I am very interested in why you want to live in a country where information is kept from you. Its bad enough as it is, but it sounds like you support a very Orwellian view of the world, with nothing but good and happy news.
Take Oceans Eleven for instance....the way they organized the schematics and the way they executed the crime were laid out pretty step-by-step...just as in many shows I watched as I grew up.... It taught one how to better execute crimes. How is that a good thing?
Thats easy--if you own a casino, or a bank, then you know what to look out for. Ever see the tv show "it takes a thief", where a guy breaks into peoples homes? DId you know that show is produced by Alstate, the home insurance company?
Heres another very real example-The government knew terrorists wanted to use airplanes to attack us. But the government decided not to let the airlines know, or the public, so nobody except the government expected it. Remember how that worked out?
Now I have to say I am very interested in why you want to live in a country where information is kept from you. Its bad enough as it is, but it sounds like you support a very Orwellian view of the world, with nothing but good and happy news.
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 9 2008, 12:46 PM)
Thats easy--if you own a casino, or a bank, then you know what to look out for. Ever see the tv show "it takes a thief", where a guy breaks into peoples homes? DId you know that show is produced by Alstate, the home insurance company?
Heres another very real example-The government knew terrorists wanted to use airplanes to attack us. But the government decided not to let the airlines know, or the public, so nobody except the government expected it. Remember how that worked out?
Now I have to say I am very interested in why you want to live in a country where information is kept from you. Its bad enough as it is, but it sounds like you support a very Orwellian view of the world, with nothing but good and happy news.
I never said I wanted the goverment to have charge over things in the media...but that people in the media might have better programming available to people! And no, everything is not all shiney happy people...but sometimes IT IS shiney and happy and that we could applaud THAT aspect of life too.
I guess we will have to disagree....and yes I remember watching "It takes a Thief"... still i don't think that the homeowner or business owner were watching those shows and saying "OH! look dear here is what we must be aware of, but oh my goodness...why are they showing folks how to do that!"
Just like I was thinking at the time...but that is just my guess!
Heres another very real example-The government knew terrorists wanted to use airplanes to attack us. But the government decided not to let the airlines know, or the public, so nobody except the government expected it. Remember how that worked out?
Now I have to say I am very interested in why you want to live in a country where information is kept from you. Its bad enough as it is, but it sounds like you support a very Orwellian view of the world, with nothing but good and happy news.
I never said I wanted the goverment to have charge over things in the media...but that people in the media might have better programming available to people! And no, everything is not all shiney happy people...but sometimes IT IS shiney and happy and that we could applaud THAT aspect of life too.
I guess we will have to disagree....and yes I remember watching "It takes a Thief"... still i don't think that the homeowner or business owner were watching those shows and saying "OH! look dear here is what we must be aware of, but oh my goodness...why are they showing folks how to do that!"
Just like I was thinking at the time...but that is just my guess!
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 02:32 PM)
Okay...I have to say I am very interested in why you think it is okay to show how to lets say pull of a bank heist?
Take Oceans Eleven for instance....the way they organized the schematics and the way they executed the crime were laid out pretty step-by-step...just as in many shows I watched as I grew up.... It taught one how to better execute crimes. How is that a good thing?
Because it shows those not predisposed to criminal acts how to recognize and avoid criminal behavior.
The number one rule of security operations around the world is "Ask yourself 'How would I get to the target if I were after him/her/it?' "
This shows that knowledge of criminal methods is the most powerful tool in the fight against criminal behavior.
Would you rather store your valuable possessions in a safe deposit box in a bank that operates under the assumption that the only way to for a criminal to get to them is to break into the bank and prepares for that, or would you rather leave them in the hands of a bank that knows every possible method of getting to them (false IDs, hacked computers, impersonating a bank officer) and prepares for them?
Similarly, would you rather take a stroll through the bad side of town with a guy who's carrying a gun in case you get mugged, or a guy who's carrying a gun and a knife (cause gun's aren't very effective weapons at close range, no matter what you see on TV) and is dressed like a local, and knows how to speak with the same accent and use the same slang as all the locals, knows how to spot someone following him, and knows the difference between a suspicious looking person and a suspicious person?
Also, if you play out either of those two scenarios in your head, you'll see that the possession of such knowledge makes it much easier to AVOID violence, rather than being forced to RELY on violence (by shooting the bank robber, or the mugger) in order to resolve the situation.
Now, I agree with you that many criminals today have watched shows like "It Takes a Theif" and movies like "Ocean's Eleven" and gotten ideas from them on how to better commit crimes, but as I pointed out in my first post... Criminals already invented such methods, what would prevent them from inventing them all over again if they were banned from the media? What would prevent them from being spread, person to person in prisons?
Additionally, while "It Takes a Theif" is a good show, "Ocean's Eleven" was chock-full of misinformation, bad planning, and unrealistic behavior. Any theif who decides to rob a casino using that method is welcome to try, and I promise you that they will fail.
Take Oceans Eleven for instance....the way they organized the schematics and the way they executed the crime were laid out pretty step-by-step...just as in many shows I watched as I grew up.... It taught one how to better execute crimes. How is that a good thing?
Because it shows those not predisposed to criminal acts how to recognize and avoid criminal behavior.
The number one rule of security operations around the world is "Ask yourself 'How would I get to the target if I were after him/her/it?' "
This shows that knowledge of criminal methods is the most powerful tool in the fight against criminal behavior.
Would you rather store your valuable possessions in a safe deposit box in a bank that operates under the assumption that the only way to for a criminal to get to them is to break into the bank and prepares for that, or would you rather leave them in the hands of a bank that knows every possible method of getting to them (false IDs, hacked computers, impersonating a bank officer) and prepares for them?
Similarly, would you rather take a stroll through the bad side of town with a guy who's carrying a gun in case you get mugged, or a guy who's carrying a gun and a knife (cause gun's aren't very effective weapons at close range, no matter what you see on TV) and is dressed like a local, and knows how to speak with the same accent and use the same slang as all the locals, knows how to spot someone following him, and knows the difference between a suspicious looking person and a suspicious person?
Also, if you play out either of those two scenarios in your head, you'll see that the possession of such knowledge makes it much easier to AVOID violence, rather than being forced to RELY on violence (by shooting the bank robber, or the mugger) in order to resolve the situation.
Now, I agree with you that many criminals today have watched shows like "It Takes a Theif" and movies like "Ocean's Eleven" and gotten ideas from them on how to better commit crimes, but as I pointed out in my first post... Criminals already invented such methods, what would prevent them from inventing them all over again if they were banned from the media? What would prevent them from being spread, person to person in prisons?
Additionally, while "It Takes a Theif" is a good show, "Ocean's Eleven" was chock-full of misinformation, bad planning, and unrealistic behavior. Any theif who decides to rob a casino using that method is welcome to try, and I promise you that they will fail.
QUOTE
I never said I wanted the goverment to have charge over things in media...but that people in the media might have better programming available to people! And no everything is not all shiney happy people...but sometimes it is shiney and happy and we could applaud that too.
I thought the discussion was about suppressing knowledge like how to do a bank heist, not about how happy is the programming. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I never said I wanted the goverment to have charge over things in media...but that people in the media might have better programming available to people! And no everything is not all shiney happy people...but sometimes it is shiney and happy and we could applaud that too. |
I thought the discussion was about suppressing knowledge like how to do a bank heist, not about how happy is the programming.
I guess we will have to disagree....and yes I remember watching "It takes a Thief"... still i don't think that the homeowner or business owner were watching those shows and saying of look dear here is what we must be aware of, but oh my goodness...why are they showing folks how to do that! Just like I was thinking...but that is just my guess!
I guess we will have to disagree....and yes I remember watching "It takes a Thief"... still i don't think that the homeowner or business owner were watching those shows and saying of look dear here is what we must be aware of, but oh my goodness...why are they showing folks how to do that! Just like I was thinking...but that is just my guess!
What are you talking about? Thats exactly the point of the show-"here is what we must be aware of" get an alarm, lock your doors and windows, dont rely on your neighbors to protect your house. And the insurance company sponsored the show because they knew other people would see the show and think the exact same thing, and go out and increase their home security. The whole point of an insurance company producing the show is that they pay out a lot of money to homeowners who get robbed, and theyre trying to change that by educating people to the dangers.
QUOTE (occidental+Jan 9 2008, 11:46 AM)
Thats easy--if you own a casino, or a bank, then you know what to look out for. Ever see the tv show "it takes a thief", where a guy breaks into peoples homes? DId you know that show is produced by Alstate, the home insurance company?
I agree. When I was young (not that I am OLD! ), I worked for the head office of a bank. So that I could recognize a fraud wire transfer, I had to KNOW how to make a fraud wire transfer. I knew all the right people, I knew what to do to make one, I knew what to do to cover my tracks, but it is my honest integrity that they trusted I would never do it.
And NO, I'm not giving out any tips! (just in case anyone had the wise idea of asking)
Of course it is possible that I COULD have performed the crime, but I probably wouldn't have made it through the psychological profiling if it was in my intentions. Although, while I worked in that department, we DID catch an employee from a branch that attempted.......
The knowledge of HOW to do something will ALWAYS tempt those with poor integrity, but the same knowledge by someone WITH integrity will hopefully catch the poor b@stard first.
I agree. When I was young (not that I am OLD!
), I worked for the head office of a bank. So that I could recognize a fraud wire transfer, I had to KNOW how to make a fraud wire transfer. I knew all the right people, I knew what to do to make one, I knew what to do to cover my tracks, but it is my honest integrity that they trusted I would never do it.And NO, I'm not giving out any tips! (just in case anyone had the wise idea of asking)
Of course it is possible that I COULD have performed the crime, but I probably wouldn't have made it through the psychological profiling if it was in my intentions. Although, while I worked in that department, we DID catch an employee from a branch that attempted.......
The knowledge of HOW to do something will ALWAYS tempt those with poor integrity, but the same knowledge by someone WITH integrity will hopefully catch the poor b@stard first.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 9 2008, 01:11 PM)
Because it shows those not predisposed to criminal acts how to recognize and avoid criminal behavior.
The number one rule of security operations around the world is "Ask yourself 'How would I get to the target if I were after him/her/it?' "
This shows that knowledge of criminal methods is the most powerful tool in the fight against criminal behavior.
Would you rather store your valuable possessions in a safe deposit box in a bank that operates under the assumption that the only way to for a criminal to get to them is to break into the bank and prepares for that, or would you rather leave them in the hands of a bank that knows every possible method of getting to them (false IDs, hacked computers, impersonating a bank officer) and prepares for them?
Similarly, would you rather take a stroll through the bad side of town with a guy who's carrying a gun in case you get mugged, or a guy who's carrying a gun and a knife (cause gun's aren't very effective weapons at close range, no matter what you see on TV) and is dressed like a local, and knows how to speak with the same accent and use the same slang as all the locals, knows how to spot someone following him, and knows the difference between a suspicious looking person and a suspicious person?
Also, if you play out either of those two scenarios in your head, you'll see that the possession of such knowledge makes it much easier to AVOID violence, rather than being forced to RELY on violence (by shooting the bank robber, or the mugger) in order to resolve the situation.
Now, I agree with you that many criminals today have watched shows like "It Takes a Theif" and movies like "Ocean's Eleven" and gotten ideas from them on how to better commit crimes, but as I pointed out in my first post... Criminals already invented such methods, what would prevent them from inventing them all over again if they were banned from the media? What would prevent them from being spread, person to person in prisons?
Additionally, while "It Takes a Theif" is a good show, "Ocean's Eleven" was chock-full of misinformation, bad planning, and unrealistic behavior. Any theif who decides to rob a casino using that method is welcome to try, and I promise you that they will fail.
Who in their right mind wants criminal behavior all over the tele when they are in business of any kind...it tells people if only subliminally that this is an acceptable behavior, that it is common place and average to...rob a liquor store or convience mart...that it is cool even to pull off a bank heist, or have a shoot out with the mob, or whatever other scenario is commonly portrayed on the tele...car-jack someone, and etc.
If one sees something often enough the mind will accept that it IS a part of life (human nature) and even if there are risks...that it may be acceptable. How is it that you find the person owning a liquor store or a bank benefits from people finding robbing them to be a normal facet of living? I don't get it. Even if these owners have not thought of every possible attempt or swindle or whatever, there could be manuals or books that go into this that were made for those entering into the business made by the insurance companies or the govt. It does not have to be paraded all over television programming for the world to become accustomed to.
If that is the only way that people in business recognise how to protect themselves from harm...well that is pretty pathetic. People in business usually hardly have a lot of time to waste on television anyway...business takes up a lot of a persons time even after leaving for home.
I don't really want to argue about this. I was merely stateing that i found something pretty much ridiculous even as a youngster, and I still think it is focused on far too much today. Defending my position is something I don't have a lot of energy for. you guys have your perspectives on it and I hold mine. it isn't going to change after it has been the same for 40 years.
Oh and as for keeping out of the bad side of town....impossible here around L.A. with inflation...but Lancaster is a far cry from South Central. I do not go where I do not fit in...why would I go there? I have never had a friend who carried weapons as a way of life.
The number one rule of security operations around the world is "Ask yourself 'How would I get to the target if I were after him/her/it?' "
This shows that knowledge of criminal methods is the most powerful tool in the fight against criminal behavior.
Would you rather store your valuable possessions in a safe deposit box in a bank that operates under the assumption that the only way to for a criminal to get to them is to break into the bank and prepares for that, or would you rather leave them in the hands of a bank that knows every possible method of getting to them (false IDs, hacked computers, impersonating a bank officer) and prepares for them?
Similarly, would you rather take a stroll through the bad side of town with a guy who's carrying a gun in case you get mugged, or a guy who's carrying a gun and a knife (cause gun's aren't very effective weapons at close range, no matter what you see on TV) and is dressed like a local, and knows how to speak with the same accent and use the same slang as all the locals, knows how to spot someone following him, and knows the difference between a suspicious looking person and a suspicious person?
Also, if you play out either of those two scenarios in your head, you'll see that the possession of such knowledge makes it much easier to AVOID violence, rather than being forced to RELY on violence (by shooting the bank robber, or the mugger) in order to resolve the situation.
Now, I agree with you that many criminals today have watched shows like "It Takes a Theif" and movies like "Ocean's Eleven" and gotten ideas from them on how to better commit crimes, but as I pointed out in my first post... Criminals already invented such methods, what would prevent them from inventing them all over again if they were banned from the media? What would prevent them from being spread, person to person in prisons?
Additionally, while "It Takes a Theif" is a good show, "Ocean's Eleven" was chock-full of misinformation, bad planning, and unrealistic behavior. Any theif who decides to rob a casino using that method is welcome to try, and I promise you that they will fail.
Who in their right mind wants criminal behavior all over the tele when they are in business of any kind...it tells people if only subliminally that this is an acceptable behavior, that it is common place and average to...rob a liquor store or convience mart...that it is cool even to pull off a bank heist, or have a shoot out with the mob, or whatever other scenario is commonly portrayed on the tele...car-jack someone, and etc.
If one sees something often enough the mind will accept that it IS a part of life (human nature) and even if there are risks...that it may be acceptable. How is it that you find the person owning a liquor store or a bank benefits from people finding robbing them to be a normal facet of living? I don't get it. Even if these owners have not thought of every possible attempt or swindle or whatever, there could be manuals or books that go into this that were made for those entering into the business made by the insurance companies or the govt. It does not have to be paraded all over television programming for the world to become accustomed to.
If that is the only way that people in business recognise how to protect themselves from harm...well that is pretty pathetic. People in business usually hardly have a lot of time to waste on television anyway...business takes up a lot of a persons time even after leaving for home.
I don't really want to argue about this. I was merely stateing that i found something pretty much ridiculous even as a youngster, and I still think it is focused on far too much today. Defending my position is something I don't have a lot of energy for. you guys have your perspectives on it and I hold mine. it isn't going to change after it has been the same for 40 years.
Oh and as for keeping out of the bad side of town....impossible here around L.A. with inflation...but Lancaster is a far cry from South Central. I do not go where I do not fit in...why would I go there? I have never had a friend who carried weapons as a way of life.
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 08:27 PM)
Defending my position is something I don't have a lot of energy for.
Ok, good to know for the future.
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 03:27 PM)
Who in their right mind wants criminal behavior all over the tele when they are in business of any kind...it tells people if only subliminally that this is an acceptable behavior, that it is common place and average to...rob a liquor store or convience mart...that it is cool even to pull off a bank heist, or have a shoot out with the mob, or whatever other scenario is commonly portrayed on the tele...car-jack someone, and etc.
If one sees something often enough the mind will accept that it IS a part of life (human nature) and even if there are risks...that it may be acceptable. How is it that you find the person owning a liquor store or a bank benefits from people finding robbing them to be a normal facet of living? I don't get it. Even if these owners have not thought of every possible attempt or swindle or whatever, there could be manuals or books that go into this that were made for those entering into the business made by the insurance companies or the govt. It does not have to be paraded all over television programming for the world to become accustomed to.
If that is the only way that people in business recognise how to protect themselves from harm...well that is pretty pathetic. People in business usually hardly have a lot of time to waste on television anyway...business takes up a lot of a persons time even after leaving for home.
I don't really want to argue about this. I was merely stateing that i found something pretty much ridiculous even as a youngster, and I still think it is focused on far too much today. Defending my position is something I don't have a lot of energy for. you guys have your perspectives on it and I hold mine. it isn't going to change after it has been the same for 40 years.
Oh and as for keeping out of the bad side of town....impossible here around L.A. with inflation...but Lancaster is a far cry from South Central. I do not go where I do not fit in...why would I go there? I have never had a friend who carried weapons as a way of life.
You seem to think people are far more gullible than they really are (which is still pretty darn gullible.)
TV and the theater are filled with visions of evil aliens, super villains, super human powers, vast conspiracies, mad scientists, geeks getting the girl, religious miracles, immutable morals, and many many many more concepts that don't or very rarely exist, but most people don't think of them as a normal part of everyday life. ("Dude, yesterday was so whack! First I got abducted by these gay little aliens who stuck things up my @$$, then when they finally let me go, I wandered into this warehouse where some mad scientist turned me into a tentacled monster! Boy, I'm lucky that the scientist's assistant and that beautiful reporter managed to find the antidote before the national guard had to put me down...")
If television is the ONLY source for some business owner to get information about how criminals might steal from him or her, then yes, that is pathetic. The same holds true for everyday people. But tell me, how many self-defense courses have you taken? How many courses on personal security have you taken? The fact is, most people have a pathetic knowledge of the many ways in which they can be victimized, and I will never endorse the suppression of knowledge as a way to prevent crimes, especially given that such suppression reduces the already meager knowledge the average person has about how to protect themselves from criminals.
If one sees something often enough the mind will accept that it IS a part of life (human nature) and even if there are risks...that it may be acceptable. How is it that you find the person owning a liquor store or a bank benefits from people finding robbing them to be a normal facet of living? I don't get it. Even if these owners have not thought of every possible attempt or swindle or whatever, there could be manuals or books that go into this that were made for those entering into the business made by the insurance companies or the govt. It does not have to be paraded all over television programming for the world to become accustomed to.
If that is the only way that people in business recognise how to protect themselves from harm...well that is pretty pathetic. People in business usually hardly have a lot of time to waste on television anyway...business takes up a lot of a persons time even after leaving for home.
I don't really want to argue about this. I was merely stateing that i found something pretty much ridiculous even as a youngster, and I still think it is focused on far too much today. Defending my position is something I don't have a lot of energy for. you guys have your perspectives on it and I hold mine. it isn't going to change after it has been the same for 40 years.
Oh and as for keeping out of the bad side of town....impossible here around L.A. with inflation...but Lancaster is a far cry from South Central. I do not go where I do not fit in...why would I go there? I have never had a friend who carried weapons as a way of life.
You seem to think people are far more gullible than they really are (which is still pretty darn gullible.)
TV and the theater are filled with visions of evil aliens, super villains, super human powers, vast conspiracies, mad scientists, geeks getting the girl, religious miracles, immutable morals, and many many many more concepts that don't or very rarely exist, but most people don't think of them as a normal part of everyday life. ("Dude, yesterday was so whack! First I got abducted by these gay little aliens who stuck things up my @$$, then when they finally let me go, I wandered into this warehouse where some mad scientist turned me into a tentacled monster! Boy, I'm lucky that the scientist's assistant and that beautiful reporter managed to find the antidote before the national guard had to put me down...")
If television is the ONLY source for some business owner to get information about how criminals might steal from him or her, then yes, that is pathetic. The same holds true for everyday people. But tell me, how many self-defense courses have you taken? How many courses on personal security have you taken? The fact is, most people have a pathetic knowledge of the many ways in which they can be victimized, and I will never endorse the suppression of knowledge as a way to prevent crimes, especially given that such suppression reduces the already meager knowledge the average person has about how to protect themselves from criminals.
But just like when reading a book, there is a line drwn between reality and fictions. One knows when they are being fed something that happens and the difference when it is something made up. Crime happens...every day in fact and people come to accept it as a part of life. Look at the bulging prison population in America!
It is real and aliens who come round knocking on our doors are not...that line is not easily disturbed...TRUTH is criminal activity is learned from watching television/movies as much as it is learned about from watching television/movies.
I was raised by hippies...no self-defense classes...no reason to be agressive in a world of mellow smokers was the gist of things...but I needed those lessons I can assure you. I really could have use them many times. I used to hitch-hike a lot, sometimes I took a ride with the wrong sort.
It is real and aliens who come round knocking on our doors are not...that line is not easily disturbed...TRUTH is criminal activity is learned from watching television/movies as much as it is learned about from watching television/movies.
I was raised by hippies...no self-defense classes...no reason to be agressive in a world of mellow smokers was the gist of things...but I needed those lessons I can assure you. I really could have use them many times. I used to hitch-hike a lot, sometimes I took a ride with the wrong sort.
At Woodstock the hippies thought that they had created something unique and wonderful. At Altamont they came face to face with their creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert
The hippy thing ended?
No, it just defined itself.
Everyone knows that methamphetamines and violence go hand in hand....hippies have changed, they have mostly become regular folks in society, some have gone down hard with the drugs they began to like most...others are in prisons across the land. I can't seem to find any around my part of town, so, I am a stranger in a strange land.
The idealism was a positive aspect of the movement. But the naiveté was dangerous.
I wonder what your opinion is about the violence in the video games of today, besides the obvious...they give one good hand/eye coordination?
I believe the games create better soldiers. And soldiers are necessary for the righteous to prevail. The wicked are not weak. The righteous must be strong.
Besides that, kids seem to enjoy the games.
Besides that, kids seem to enjoy the games.
Yes we need to be strong....but everyone notices the trend toward less outdoor play and less interest in other activities around this gaming "sensation" or BOOM.
How is that going to make a better generation of soldiers than those who were active all through their childhoods, before signing on to fight in the service of our militia? Don't you think these gamers are at a disadvantage for the basic training and making it through that, you have got to be tough to get through basic.
How is that going to make a better generation of soldiers than those who were active all through their childhoods, before signing on to fight in the service of our militia? Don't you think these gamers are at a disadvantage for the basic training and making it through that, you have got to be tough to get through basic.
Good point. Physical exercise is critical. Overall the upper body strength of young adults seems to be increasing (bench press, push-ups, and pull-ups). However, aerobic endurance does appear to be decreasing. Of course, that opinion is empirical not scientific.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jan 9 2008, 08:13 PM)
Good point. Physical exercise is critical. Overall the upper body strength of young adults seems to be increasing (bench press, push-ups, and pull-ups). However, aerobic endurance does appear to be decreasing. Of course, that opinion is empirical not scientific.
Once I thought about it a little...I decided that maybe in the future everyone won't be subjected to such rigorous basic training camps. If they have a very high aptitude and are very desirable, maybe there will be a new kind of training for those who would fight from their sitting positions? I guess it is possible isn't it?
Once I thought about it a little...I decided that maybe in the future everyone won't be subjected to such rigorous basic training camps. If they have a very high aptitude and are very desirable, maybe there will be a new kind of training for those who would fight from their sitting positions? I guess it is possible isn't it?
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 10:32 PM)
Once I thought about it a little...I decided that maybe in the future everyone won't be subjected to such rigorous basic training camps. If they have a very high aptitude and are very desirable, maybe there will be a new kind of training for those who would fight from their sitting positions? I guess it is possible isn't it?
One thing I'm quite sure of, is that if (more like: when) we design a robot as or more agile, strong and fast as a human being, there will be a major push in the military to put soldiers behind the controls of such robots. At that point, physical fitness will not be such an issue.
If we develop AI capable of allowing such a robot to operate independently in the field, then there will be no need for soldiers anymore. Only officers will be needed. Now THAT will be seen as the greatest advantage of modern technology for a few dozen years.
Then, when the population triples in 60 years, we'll scrap the robots and go back to killing each other. Cause there's NO WAY in my opinion that humanity will ever have the common sense to voluntarily control our birth rates on a large enough scale to make a difference.
Sorry to rant, but I'm sleepy!
One thing I'm quite sure of, is that if (more like: when) we design a robot as or more agile, strong and fast as a human being, there will be a major push in the military to put soldiers behind the controls of such robots. At that point, physical fitness will not be such an issue.
If we develop AI capable of allowing such a robot to operate independently in the field, then there will be no need for soldiers anymore. Only officers will be needed. Now THAT will be seen as the greatest advantage of modern technology for a few dozen years.
Then, when the population triples in 60 years, we'll scrap the robots and go back to killing each other. Cause there's NO WAY in my opinion that humanity will ever have the common sense to voluntarily control our birth rates on a large enough scale to make a difference.
Sorry to rant, but I'm sleepy!
Hey Sleepy...I'm grumpy...hehe!
But really I don't think we are going anywhere fast with AI or Robots...the best ones I have seen...can't do sheeeit!
are we talking hundreds of years from now?
But really I don't think we are going anywhere fast with AI or Robots...the best ones I have seen...can't do sheeeit!
are we talking hundreds of years from now?
I take it back...these are the best i have seen!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vwZ5FQEUFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxdtkopQOlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091ugdiojEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vwZ5FQEUFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxdtkopQOlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=091ugdiojEM
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 9 2008, 11:19 PM)
Hey Sleepy...I'm grumpy...hehe!
But really I don't think we are going anywhere fast with AI or Robots...the best ones I have seen...can't do sheeeit!
are we talking hundreds of years from now?
We should find Dopey and all hang out.
Those videos were showing advances in robotics that I had in mind when I made that post. I think in a few dozen years we might have robots capable of doing anything a human can, and a few dozen years past that, we should have robots capable of exceeding human abilities.
Hundreds of years from now is when I expect such AI. Moore's law is suppose to hold true for only another 10-20 years, and even then (with 4000 GHz processors in home computers, and ten to a hundred times that in supercomputers) we're still only scratching the surface of the computational power of the human brain.
Of course, I do have some doubts about whether it is possible to design such an AI without using an actual brain for the architecture, but then, if my doubts prove correct, we should have the technology to grow such a brain from stem cells at that point.
But really I don't think we are going anywhere fast with AI or Robots...the best ones I have seen...can't do sheeeit!
are we talking hundreds of years from now?
We should find Dopey and all hang out.
Those videos were showing advances in robotics that I had in mind when I made that post. I think in a few dozen years we might have robots capable of doing anything a human can, and a few dozen years past that, we should have robots capable of exceeding human abilities.
Hundreds of years from now is when I expect such AI. Moore's law is suppose to hold true for only another 10-20 years, and even then (with 4000 GHz processors in home computers, and ten to a hundred times that in supercomputers) we're still only scratching the surface of the computational power of the human brain.
Of course, I do have some doubts about whether it is possible to design such an AI without using an actual brain for the architecture, but then, if my doubts prove correct, we should have the technology to grow such a brain from stem cells at that point.
I don't know why we want these things to be more capable, and smarter than we are....I really don't get the reason for it...it seems like a bad futuristic movie coming on.
Now, if I can just write a rule set for nlSOAR that can reply to posts here!
Robotic bloggers and bad futuristic movies are one way to look at it, but with optimism, we can envision the advances of nanorobotic electronic manufacturing, micro-surgical techniques with little or no recovery time and countless other scenarios benefiting mankind tremendously. 
Maybe nanorobots in your brain, repairing concussion damage and reconnecting synapses!
Oh Oh! If Derek1148 gets that, he will be sending them everywhere Bush wants to "play war" like Iran, now. THAT would be a disaster!
BTW, the development of such robots wouldn't alleviate the need for physical fitness. I've kept myself able to do the same physical feats I could do when I was 25. The health benefits of that go without saying. I can out hike, out bicycle, out walk and more, most people half my age. And at 54, I'm proud of that. And no robot can take that away!
Maybe nanorobots in your brain, repairing concussion damage and reconnecting synapses! QUOTE
One thing I'm quite sure of, is that if (more like: when) we design a robot as or more agile, strong and fast as a human being, there will be a major push in the military to put soldiers behind the controls of such robots. At that point, physical fitness will not be such an issue.
If we develop AI capable of allowing such a robot to operate independently in the field, then there will be no need for soldiers anymore. Only officers will be needed. Now THAT will be seen as the greatest advantage of modern technology for a few dozen years.
BigDumbWeirdo quote.If we develop AI capable of allowing such a robot to operate independently in the field, then there will be no need for soldiers anymore. Only officers will be needed. Now THAT will be seen as the greatest advantage of modern technology for a few dozen years.
Oh Oh! If Derek1148 gets that, he will be sending them everywhere Bush wants to "play war" like Iran, now. THAT would be a disaster!
BTW, the development of such robots wouldn't alleviate the need for physical fitness. I've kept myself able to do the same physical feats I could do when I was 25. The health benefits of that go without saying. I can out hike, out bicycle, out walk and more, most people half my age. And at 54, I'm proud of that. And no robot can take that away!
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 10 2008, 12:47 PM)
I don't know why we want these things to be more capable, and smarter than we are....I really don't get the reason for it...it seems like a bad futuristic movie coming on.
Because it would give all the benefits of curious institution-type slavery, with none of the moral consequences.
Ever see Star Trek: The Next Generation? They have an economy without money. Made possible by automated resource gathering and manufacturing.
Not that I'm suggesting such is likely, merely possible.
Because it would give all the benefits of curious institution-type slavery, with none of the moral consequences.
Ever see Star Trek: The Next Generation? They have an economy without money. Made possible by automated resource gathering and manufacturing.
Not that I'm suggesting such is likely, merely possible.
QUOTE (PhotoJack+)
but with optimism, we can envision the advances of nanorobotic electronic manufacturing, micro-surgical techniques with little or no recovery time and countless other scenarios benefiting mankind tremendously. Maybe nanorobots in your brain, repairing concussion damage and reconnecting synapses!
This is the sort of thing that I hope and pray for. Medical nano-technology is the holy grail of technology. With sufficient resources and capabilities, medical nano-technology could make us effectively immortal, repairing age-related damage as it occurs, and nearly invincible, repairing disease and accident inflicted damage as it occurs.
Sure it would, as far as the military is concerned. It wouldn't alleviate the benefits of such for a human being, but the need (in order to make an effective soldier) would be gone. And with an AI capable of taking over for the soldier's judgment, the only requirement for military personnel would be an understanding of strategic level military planning and logistics. The robots would take care of the tactical level stuff themselves.
This is the sort of thing that I hope and pray for. Medical nano-technology is the holy grail of technology. With sufficient resources and capabilities, medical nano-technology could make us effectively immortal, repairing age-related damage as it occurs, and nearly invincible, repairing disease and accident inflicted damage as it occurs.
QUOTE
BTW, the development of such robots wouldn't alleviate the need for physical fitness.
Sure it would, as far as the military is concerned. It wouldn't alleviate the benefits of such for a human being, but the need (in order to make an effective soldier) would be gone. And with an AI capable of taking over for the soldier's judgment, the only requirement for military personnel would be an understanding of strategic level military planning and logistics. The robots would take care of the tactical level stuff themselves.
I think you have made some really great points there BDW...and I guess it's a future even I (who never wanted a computer, once) can look forward to with some excitement! It looks pretty bright
QUOTE (photojack+Jan 10 2008, 06:29 PM)
Oh Oh! If Derek1148 gets that, he will be sending them everywhere Bush wants to "play war" like Iran, now. THAT would be a disaster!
What do you think; if a tyrant is content on confining his butchery to within his own borders and to his own people then we should leave him alone? We could always hurl emoticons at him.
What do you think; if a tyrant is content on confining his butchery to within his own borders and to his own people then we should leave him alone? We could always hurl emoticons at him.
Rather than hurling your hated emoticons at them, we could get embroiled in another highly questionable war, with our massive resources already stretched thin and further ruin America's once highly esteemed reputation, and at what further cost to our ever escalating Federal deficit? "Look, before you leap, think, before you threaten!" This should be America's (Bush's) new motto. What if other nations acted (warred) preemptively like you propose for us? Don't you think other nations could attack us over the conditions at Abu Graib or any of the countless other Bush transgressions?
There, I'll have to stop! I've reached my limit of five emoticons. :-)
we could get embroiled in another highly questionable war, with our massive resources already stretched thin and further ruin America's once highly esteemed reputation, and at what further cost to our ever escalating Federal deficit? "Look, before you leap, think, before you threaten!" This should be America's (Bush's) new motto. What if other nations acted (warred) preemptively like you propose for us? Don't you think other nations could attack us over the conditions at Abu Graib or any of the countless other Bush transgressions? There, I'll have to stop! I've reached my limit of five emoticons. :-)
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jan 12 2008, 03:05 AM)
What do you think; if a tyrant is content on confining his butchery to within his own borders and to his own people then we should leave him alone? We could always hurl emoticons at him.
What if people took the accusations against Bush, that he knew of the strikes on the World Trade Center before they occured (including the Pentagon) and they came after HIM for killing (in a tyranical, imperialist move... to get us into a war that benefitted his wealthy compatriots) the citizens of this His country.
And taking those accusations as a truth decided that America need be policed for the benefit of our citizens? Maybe there is no army that could defeat ours in all the world but if a few got together to take over this country, in the name of what is right for the U.S...there could be a similar bloodbath here, as the one now going on in Iraq.
It isn't going to happen I'm sure, but the thought is that it wouldn't be right for America to be policed because of what a tyrannical leader did. Sadaam H was a real Basterd who killed his own people and now they have the U.S. replacing him and killing their own people, EVERYDAY. Hooray for Democracy! It must be a good thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo
Why we fight...1 of 4
all may be found in you tube.
What if people took the accusations against Bush, that he knew of the strikes on the World Trade Center before they occured (including the Pentagon) and they came after HIM for killing (in a tyranical, imperialist move... to get us into a war that benefitted his wealthy compatriots) the citizens of this His country.
And taking those accusations as a truth decided that America need be policed for the benefit of our citizens? Maybe there is no army that could defeat ours in all the world but if a few got together to take over this country, in the name of what is right for the U.S...there could be a similar bloodbath here, as the one now going on in Iraq.
It isn't going to happen I'm sure, but the thought is that it wouldn't be right for America to be policed because of what a tyrannical leader did. Sadaam H was a real Basterd who killed his own people and now they have the U.S. replacing him and killing their own people, EVERYDAY. Hooray for Democracy! It must be a good thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xYeuzG24mo
Why we fight...1 of 4
all may be found in you tube.
QUOTE (photojack+Jan 12 2008, 07:12 AM)
What if other nations acted (warred) preemptively like you propose for us? Don't you think other nations could attack us over the conditions at Abu Graib or any of the countless other Bush transgressions?
"Great minds think alike" they say. ;0)
"Great minds think alike" they say. ;0)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.