|
Edwynn -> RE: From the other side of the world (12/18/2012 7:10:32 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thezeppo
If people are more wily and innovative then surely they are less credible.
I have no idea how you get an apriori association there. True it is that some from the 'less creditable' corner use their wiles and innovation for that purpose. Witness the financial meltdown. But not everyone uses wile and innovation for nefarious purpose.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thezeppo
If we have already agreed that violence in culture legitimises violent behaviours
quote:
I never agreed to any such thing.
Violence in culture artificially rationalises and justifies violence in real life through fiction, but it does not make any of it 'legitimate'.
quote:
and you have said that you think violence in books and films is more detrimental than violence in games,
I never said any such thing, not even close.
quote:
Do you seriously think that if all violent games were made unplayable then events such as we have seen recently would stop?
Is that what I said?
I can tell you one thing; your own display regarding separation of games from reality is not in evidence regarding your ability to separate what is going on in your head vs. what is actually being communicated.
quote:
Ah, once again I am having comprehension problems. It seems to be a common theme with people trying to find any substance whatsoever in the smoke you keep putting out. First it's 'violence video games, plain and simple' that are the problem. Then we have 'violence novels --> violence films --> violence games' (that was your 'climb down' remember?). Now we are back on computer games. Maybe I would have an easier job of comprehending if you managed to hold the same opinion for three consecutive minutes.
The succession from violent novels to movies to video games as I indicated it would be understood by most readers as a progression and/or amplification of the violent influence, not as the first two having greater impact than video games. I didn't use the mathematical "greater than," I used the two hyphens preceding the arrow mark as indication of succession, a standard device for such indication in forums.
quote:
(that was your 'climb down' remember?)
Please, get a grip, read an actual book, etc.
quote:
ORIGINAL: thezeppo
I should point out that the only thing that drew me into this conversation in the first place was that you blamed modern video games for children growing up thinking violence is the solution, as far as I can tell on the basis that you were once physically attacked by a member of your family. In your head you have found a correlation between the two, ...
You are really stumbling, here. Now violent video game players think the experience qualifies them as psychiatrists.
quote:
Of course modern video games could play a contributory role in exacerbating a previously existing mental condition, but we have already talked about violence in computer games in the context of violence in culture. So why are we still here? Why don't you stop insulting my ability to comprehend thin air and actually say something that has some relevance to your initial assertion?
If we were discussing this subject in 1842 or 1912, I would have said 'violent novels,' if we were discussing it in the 1920's to 1990's, I would have said 'violent movies.' But we are in the 2000's and the video games bring a level of interaction into play that I think far surpasses the previous regarding potential influence on a person's perception of reality. Novels and movies provide a vicarious experience of violence., through observation of other players, however stimulating that might be.
With video games the player is the actor of violence, with concomitant greater impact.
Quite a significant distinction.
|
|
|
|
