I'm still a little astounded: what was really mature? pointing out that you find a LOT of people to dislike so I'm sure as hell not concerned?
restating my main point throughout the argument about you feeling only you can think, and not the store manager?
shooting you down after you said some idiotic comment about sources?
Or is it just generally stamping out morons and lunacy in the world?
In any case, I find it interesting that you chose this post to respond to as your last post, and not the one in which I showed you what an utter fool you are. That really says a lot.
yeah its too bad those games arent experience for hours and hours and hours, day in and day out, and dont come with intensely real graphic images including spurting blood and flying limbs, and are devoid of ultra realistic killing sounds. Yeah those things happen more often in near virtual reality violent killing spree games that youngsters play all the time.
you are a big fucking idiot...you know why? because you fucking equate children's games that require IMAGINATION to computer games that attempt to depict reality as closely as possible ARGHGHGHGHGH noone thinks anymore... NOONE
hmm I'm aggressive.. Do you think you are smart because you have shown the person arguing against violence that he is in fact violence?
actually, thats just downright dumb. I make no claims to the contrary and I will readily admit it. Furthermore, it has absolutely no bearing on anything said.
I want to make one more point that was implicit in my last post: Thought and behavior are two seperate and distinct things. The way you think and the way you behave can be divergent. (if they are too divergent you get what Leon Festinger calls Cognitive Dissonance, a distressing and anxious mentality arising from the incongruency. In my opinion our entire society has suffered from it since World War I, to be excaberated greatly by World War II and the holocaust)
I enjoy your perspective as you have some intellegintly formed opinions.
I do know know what I am talking about, however it appears as though my definitions are not in concert with popular discourse. They are formed from actual behavioral science studies.
Rational aka conscious thought is guided by a logical structure. Irrational behavior is defined as emotions, needs, wants, feelings, etc etc.. essentially activities that occur in the right hemisphere of the brain.
In lay terms, irrational behavior is anything not congruent with 'normal' behavior. You might call a schizophrenic irrational, however this would be incorrect. We are all irrational if we do anything based on feeling a need, want or emotion. Hunger is defined as irrational as it does not employ rational thought.
A criminal quite often rationally asseses a crime, though he does it for irrational ends: he is hungry, cannot afford bread, so he steals it. That same end governed my own purchase of the bread. In other cases, say a serial killer, somehow he has learned an association between killing and the feelings that arise from it.
As you said, advertising manipulates emotions, though it rarely if ever presents a coherent arguement as to why a product should be bought... generally there isnt one.
To address your opinion on behavior, in fact the converse is true of what you said. Behavior is defined precisly as the response to a constellation of variables that contribute to a your interaction with certain stimuli. Largely it involves instincts and reflexes that are learned through conditioning (see B.F. Skinner and operant conditioning, the keystone of modern behavioral psychology). Behavior almost never involves rational thought. You dont say: "For reasons x, y, and z I am going to eat this hamburger." Rather you would feel a number of things, namely hunger, which would recall the associations you have made previously with eating hamburgers and curing your empty stomach. Remember, you wouldnt eat the hamburger if you didnt have a past association that links that hamburger with curing hunger. You may object and say that that is a rational association, however there are a number of other factors at play here:
Say for instance you get hungry. What is going to determine your response? In the modern world, its advertising. Advertising seeks to teach you associations. McDonalds tries very hard to associate the hamburger with not just curing hunger, but also family, good times, happyness, etc etc....
Why would a being with rationally governed behavior eat a hamburger, ice cream, etc when hes not hungry? Why, in this same instance, would he eat something that rational thought would object to? I have rarely left McDonalds with a good feeling in my stomach, however when I get the hunger feeling in my stomach, I somehow associate McDicks burger with the hunger. Its not going to cure the hunger, experience would tell me, its going to make me feel worse. But I do it anyways. This is an examble of ATTITUDES coming into play. You attitude determines what you will do, and thus this is the main object of exploitation for advertising.
Case in point: Nike. Nike stopped marketing their clothes a long time ago. They're just like everything else in the store. What they do is market a brand image- a number of feelings and emotions are associated with the brand. This phenomenon started in the late fifties and dominates advertising today. Essentially they package up your emotions and sell them back to.
Hey nice foe list. You seem like a real friendly guy, what with... 30 enemies and.. 4 friends.
I would expect no less from the kind of asshole who thinks only he has the right to opinions. (by the way, thats you =)
Also.. source disclosure? I dont recall citing anything. If you're talking about my reference to Thorndike in a different post, well, I dont pay patronage to fucking loser morons who dont have the time to put a sentance into google and find the out the name of Thorndike's monumental work in the history of psychology : Animal Intelligence.
I am completely uninterested in your babble of anecdotal evidence.
As per behavior, pick up a book on how advertising works (I recommend Joyce Nelson's The Perfect Machine: Television in The Nuclear Age) and tell me people get locked up for irrational behavior.
clearly you have no understanding of the difference between thought and behavior.
"People have a choice." I guess your definition of a 'people' does not include Store Managers.
He has the right not to make a point and say "No, I will not sell ultra-realistic violent crime games that contribute to an atmosphere of hostility" (I assume this was his point) just as much as you have a right to say "Yes, I will engage in depictions of ultra-realistic crime activity as much as I god damn want to and if you dont make it really easy for me then I, cog in the machine, will withhold my inconsequentially small amount of money compared to the amount your giant store chain pulls in in a year."
What is REALLY sad is it took some pseudo-righteous stance against people making decisions (in order to uphold your right to force your opinion down other people's throats) before you decided to support your friendly neighbourhood electronics dealer who is picking up the loose change that got dropped on the floor in order to support his kids.
Get a clue.
BTW - I talked to a friend about my opinion and he agrees. Why does this matter? it doesnt. but you seem to think your friends opinions are important so I will include my friend's also : YOU ARE A MORON.
Also, I hate people like you, and I would spit on you as I called you a moron.
As I said the first time, the point is that it doesnt even make you think about it. you internalize it. you will never do anything even close to what you do in a video game. That is just sillyness.
Yet another person thinks behavior is governed by rational conscious thought.
Firstly, your opinion is inconsequential. Killing is killing. Killing a bug is killing a bug. Continually observing death, in whatever form, has consequences.
Secondly, your views on GI Joes are inconsequential. Who cares? Whats your point? so you've found another thing that encourages violent mentalities in Americans. Lets deal with the ultra-realistic ones first.
Yet another person thinks that behavior is governed by rational, conscious thought.
so what your trying to say is : in an effort to uphold people's rights to "think for themselves", you decided to a) take your business elsewhere b) threaten a one man boycott and c) come back after and flaunt your self-righteousness all in an effort to make them think a different way.
This is unreal. As if the fact that the United States Army employs a video game in order to lure youngsters into its ranks isnt enough evidence.
Have you guys EVER studied behavioral sciences at ALL?
How is it that you people feel you are apt to comment on such a complex issue as learning and attitude formation?
Theres a reason movies have ratings. And its not because kids cry. Developing minds are extremely susceptible to suggestion. Attitudes and emotions are extremely fragile.
There is a concept in behaviorism called association, best described in 1898 by Thorndike as the Law of Effect: "Behavior leading to satisfactory states is likely, behavior leading to unsatisfactory states, less likely."
There is a difference between consciously engaging the lyrics of a song or words in a book and actively reliving experiences (remember, observations and sensations are experiences) involving violence and death.
You internalize (naturalize) the behavior and the resulting states of mind that occur. It will NOT affect your conscious thought. You will not suddenly be overcome with a desire to kill. That is just sillyness.
Instead, your thoughts and actions will be characterized by these associations you have made in your mind. They will evoke a reflexive, emotional response. your attitudes will be underlined by the extreme levels of violence you are submerged in.
Its great for the warmongering USA, thats why the law will never pass. A nation whose attitudes are stereotyped by violence will not object to : War in Vietnam, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq again, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on your fucking mind. Even if war after war after war after war after war FAILS TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OBJECTIVES.
So humanity comes to the brink of Star Trek-like communicator devices that allow instant messaging with anyone, anywhere, and we are supposed to be suprised that this has changed the way people interact?
In case this guy hadnt noticed, humans didnt come this far through pantomime. Human interaction consists of words expressed either orally or in writing. cell phones affect interaction? oh wow.
This is just DUMB. You worry about this for GOVERNMENT software? Government software??? WHAT? So you are afraid of software that obviously has to confrom to certain standards and must not be crap because its being paid for by the taxpayer and will be heavily screened by the media.
I can think of ZERO "nasty scenarios" in which a representative would put his CAREER on the line by having us pay for intentionally malignant software, like so brilliantly expounded.
Many of the characters and units from Warcraft 3 appear to be derived or borrowed from the Lord of the Rings. The Warcraft 3 creature types are very similar (Elves, Humans, Orcs and Undead), heros bear a resemblance to those in LOTR and IMHO Warcraft 3 itself could have been marketed under the name War of the Rings. Warcraft 3 has benifitted greatly from LOTR inspired mythology. This should be interesting then because in order to not be almost a replica it will have to be more innovative and groundbreaking than even Warcraft 3, which I hold very highly in this regard. I'll be very interested in the outcome.
In any case, by the sound of the time period of this thing it will serve as a nice interim between WC3 and WC4.
Obviously you did not register a complaint, which is a little dissappoiting, but nevertheless.
I just called that number and asked if that was the correct number to register a complaint. I was told the correct way to formally register it was through a fax number:
1-800-898-8982.
I emplore all who have access to a fax machine to write something up very quickly and fax it in.
oh yeah the figure is something like 1-2 million Iraqis have starved to death because of those actions and the US imposed embargo on the country.
I got this from: Many gave thanks, because it seemed the dying of the innocents - more than 1,211,285 babies and youngsters have died from embargo-related causes since 1990 - might soon end. (This figure is verified by UNICEF for August, 1990 to August, 1997.)
US actions have DEVASTED the Iraqi population. Not just 100,000 Iraqis dead. The US has for the last 10 years been bombing the dykes and irrigations channels in Iraq to stop them from growing food (its a desert).
After WWII, a Nazi general was sentanced to DEATH by the World Court for ordering a soldier to open the dykes in Holland.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still a little astounded: what was really mature?
pointing out that you find a LOT of people to dislike so I'm sure as hell not concerned?
restating my main point throughout the argument about you feeling only you can think, and not the store manager?
shooting you down after you said some idiotic comment about sources?
Or is it just generally stamping out morons and lunacy in the world?
In any case, I find it interesting that you chose this post to respond to as your last post, and not the one in which I showed you what an utter fool you are. That really says a lot.
yeah its too bad those games arent experience for hours and hours and hours, day in and day out, and dont come with intensely real graphic images including spurting blood and flying limbs, and are devoid of ultra realistic killing sounds.
.you know why? because you fucking equate children's games that require IMAGINATION to computer games that attempt to depict reality as closely as possible
Yeah those things happen more often in near virtual reality violent killing spree games that youngsters play all the time.
you are a big fucking idiot..
ARGHGHGHGHGH
noone thinks anymore... NOONE
hmm I'm aggressive..
Do you think you are smart because you have shown the person arguing against violence that he is in fact violence?
actually, thats just downright dumb. I make no claims to the contrary and I will readily admit it. Furthermore, it has absolutely no bearing on anything said.
lol
I understand.
When a person gets proved wrong after so much arguing generally they dont like to admit it.
I want to make one more point that was implicit in my last post: Thought and behavior are two seperate and distinct things. The way you think and the way you behave can be divergent. (if they are too divergent you get what Leon Festinger calls Cognitive Dissonance, a distressing and anxious mentality arising from the incongruency. In my opinion our entire society has suffered from it since World War I, to be excaberated greatly by World War II and the holocaust)
I enjoy your perspective as you have some intellegintly formed opinions.
...
I do know know what I am talking about, however it appears as though my definitions are not in concert with popular discourse. They are formed from actual behavioral science studies.
Rational aka conscious thought is guided by a logical structure. Irrational behavior is defined as emotions, needs, wants, feelings, etc etc.. essentially activities that occur in the right hemisphere of the brain.
In lay terms, irrational behavior is anything not congruent with 'normal' behavior. You might call a schizophrenic irrational, however this would be incorrect. We are all irrational if we do anything based on feeling a need, want or emotion. Hunger is defined as irrational as it does not employ rational thought.
A criminal quite often rationally asseses a crime, though he does it for irrational ends: he is hungry, cannot afford bread, so he steals it. That same end governed my own purchase of the bread. In other cases, say a serial killer, somehow he has learned an association between killing and the feelings that arise from it.
As you said, advertising manipulates emotions, though it rarely if ever presents a coherent arguement as to why a product should be bought... generally there isnt one.
To address your opinion on behavior, in fact the converse is true of what you said. Behavior is defined precisly as the response to a constellation of variables that contribute to a your interaction with certain stimuli. Largely it involves instincts and reflexes that are learned through conditioning (see B.F. Skinner and operant conditioning, the keystone of modern behavioral psychology). Behavior almost never involves rational thought. You dont say: "For reasons x, y, and z I am going to eat this hamburger." Rather you would feel a number of things, namely hunger, which would recall the associations you have made previously with eating hamburgers and curing your empty stomach. Remember, you wouldnt eat the hamburger if you didnt have a past association that links that hamburger with curing hunger. You may object and say that that is a rational association, however there are a number of other factors at play here:
Say for instance you get hungry. What is going to determine your response? In the modern world, its advertising. Advertising seeks to teach you associations. McDonalds tries very hard to associate the hamburger with not just curing hunger, but also family, good times, happyness, etc etc.
Why would a being with rationally governed behavior eat a hamburger, ice cream, etc when hes not hungry? Why, in this same instance, would he eat something that rational thought would object to? I have rarely left McDonalds with a good feeling in my stomach, however when I get the hunger feeling in my stomach, I somehow associate McDicks burger with the hunger. Its not going to cure the hunger, experience would tell me, its going to make me feel worse. But I do it anyways. This is an examble of ATTITUDES coming into play. You attitude determines what you will do, and thus this is the main object of exploitation for advertising.
Case in point: Nike. Nike stopped marketing their clothes a long time ago. They're just like everything else in the store. What they do is market a brand image- a number of feelings and emotions are associated with the brand. This phenomenon started in the late fifties and dominates advertising today. Essentially they package up your emotions and sell them back to.
Hey nice foe list. You seem like a real friendly guy, what with ... 30 enemies and.. 4 friends.
.. source disclosure? I dont recall citing anything. If you're talking about my reference to Thorndike in a different post, well, I dont pay patronage to fucking loser morons who dont have the time to put a sentance into google and find the out the name of Thorndike's monumental work in the history of psychology : Animal Intelligence.
I would expect no less from the kind of asshole who thinks only he has the right to opinions. (by the way, thats you =)
Also
Yet another person doesnt understand behavior.
I am completely uninterested in your babble of anecdotal evidence.
As per behavior, pick up a book on how advertising works (I recommend Joyce Nelson's The Perfect Machine: Television in The Nuclear Age) and tell me people get locked up for irrational behavior.
clearly you have no understanding of the difference between thought and behavior.
Earth to Nordicfrost:
"People have a choice." I guess your definition of a 'people' does not include Store Managers.
He has the right not to make a point and say "No, I will not sell ultra-realistic violent crime games that contribute to an atmosphere of hostility" (I assume this was his point) just as much as you have a right to say "Yes, I will engage in depictions of ultra-realistic crime activity as much as I god damn want to and if you dont make it really easy for me then I, cog in the machine, will withhold my inconsequentially small amount of money compared to the amount your giant store chain pulls in in a year."
What is REALLY sad is it took some pseudo-righteous stance against people making decisions (in order to uphold your right to force your opinion down other people's throats) before you decided to support your friendly neighbourhood electronics dealer who is picking up the loose change that got dropped on the floor in order to support his kids.
Get a clue.
BTW - I talked to a friend about my opinion and he agrees. Why does this matter? it doesnt. but you seem to think your friends opinions are important so I will include my friend's also : YOU ARE A MORON.
Also, I hate people like you, and I would spit on you as I called you a moron.
Thanks for your time, new found foe.
omg
why do you think I said it?
I hate all these fucking clueless morons.
what did I say at the end there? "Speak, dont think"?
no. I said THINK, THEN SPEAK.
better yet, from what I've seen so far, dont bother with either it wont get you anywhere.
DID YOU READ WHAT I WROTE?
man people are dumb
no wonder I got 40% troll mod on that.
As I said the first time, the point is that it doesnt even make you think about it. you internalize it. you will never do anything even close to what you do in a video game. That is just sillyness.
Yet another person thinks behavior is governed by rational conscious thought.
I never made any value judgements you fucking idiot. America continually wages war. Thats a fact. its called warmongering.
ye gads
Firstly, your opinion is inconsequential. Killing is killing. Killing a bug is killing a bug. Continually observing death, in whatever form, has consequences.
Secondly, your views on GI Joes are inconsequential. Who cares? Whats your point? so you've found another thing that encourages violent mentalities in Americans. Lets deal with the ultra-realistic ones first.
Yet another person thinks that behavior is governed by rational, conscious thought.
Again, another person appears to think that behavior is governed by rational (ie conscious) thought.
Do you have any idea what it does to your brain to associate killing and the sounds of killing with RELAXATION?
Wake up computer guys: there are things called attitudes and emotions. Those are what propaganda uses to get you to buy/think stuff.
so what your trying to say is : in an effort to uphold people's rights to "think for themselves", you decided to a) take your business elsewhere b) threaten a one man boycott and c) come back after and flaunt your self-righteousness
all in an effort to make them think a different way.
Good work, moron.
This is unreal. As if the fact that the United States Army employs a video game in order to lure youngsters into its ranks isnt enough evidence.
Have you guys EVER studied behavioral sciences at ALL?
How is it that you people feel you are apt to comment on such a complex issue as learning and attitude formation?
Theres a reason movies have ratings. And its not because kids cry. Developing minds are extremely susceptible to suggestion. Attitudes and emotions are extremely fragile.
There is a concept in behaviorism called association, best described in 1898 by Thorndike as the Law of Effect: "Behavior leading to satisfactory states is likely, behavior leading to unsatisfactory states, less likely."
There is a difference between consciously engaging the lyrics of a song or words in a book and actively reliving experiences (remember, observations and sensations are experiences) involving violence and death.
You internalize (naturalize) the behavior and the resulting states of mind that occur. It will NOT affect your conscious thought. You will not suddenly be overcome with a desire to kill. That is just sillyness.
Instead, your thoughts and actions will be characterized by these associations you have made in your mind. They will evoke a reflexive, emotional response. your attitudes will be underlined by the extreme levels of violence you are submerged in.
Its great for the warmongering USA, thats why the law will never pass. A nation whose attitudes are stereotyped by violence will not object to : War in Vietnam, War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, War in Iraq again, War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on your fucking mind. Even if war after war after war after war after war FAILS TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OBJECTIVES.
think about it.
before you speak.
So humanity comes to the brink of Star Trek-like communicator devices that allow instant messaging with anyone, anywhere, and we are supposed to be suprised that this has changed the way people interact?
In case this guy hadnt noticed, humans didnt come this far through pantomime. Human interaction consists of words expressed either orally or in writing. cell phones affect interaction? oh wow.
Dont you pay taxes?
This is just DUMB. You worry about this for GOVERNMENT software? Government software???
WHAT? So you are afraid of software that obviously has to confrom to certain standards and must not be crap because its being paid for by the taxpayer and will be heavily screened by the media.
I can think of ZERO "nasty scenarios" in which a representative would put his CAREER on the line by having us pay for intentionally malignant software, like so brilliantly expounded.
moron.
Many of the characters and units from Warcraft 3 appear to be derived or borrowed from the Lord of the Rings. The Warcraft 3 creature types are very similar (Elves, Humans, Orcs and Undead), heros bear a resemblance to those in LOTR and IMHO Warcraft 3 itself could have been marketed under the name War of the Rings. Warcraft 3 has benifitted greatly from LOTR inspired mythology. This should be interesting then because in order to not be almost a replica it will have to be more innovative and groundbreaking than even Warcraft 3, which I hold very highly in this regard. I'll be very interested in the outcome.
In any case, by the sound of the time period of this thing it will serve as a nice interim between WC3 and WC4.
Obviously you did not register a complaint, which is a little dissappoiting, but nevertheless.
I just called that number and asked if that was the correct number to register a complaint. I was told the correct way to formally register it was through a fax number:
1-800-898-8982.
I emplore all who have access to a fax machine to write something up very quickly and fax it in.
"If national security is at stake, then I imagine they won't have much trouble getting a warrant from a judge. "
ok that was the perfect way to end that. very nice.
oh yeah the figure is something like 1-2 million Iraqis have starved to death because of those actions and the US imposed embargo on the country.
I got this from:
Many gave thanks, because it seemed the dying of the innocents - more than 1,211,285 babies and youngsters have died from embargo-related causes since 1990 - might soon end. (This figure is verified by UNICEF for August, 1990 to August, 1997.)
from here:
http://www.iacenter.org/cansun.htm
US actions have DEVASTED the Iraqi population. Not just 100,000 Iraqis dead. The US has for the last 10 years been bombing the dykes and irrigations channels in Iraq to stop them from growing food (its a desert).
After WWII, a Nazi general was sentanced to DEATH by the World Court for ordering a soldier to open the dykes in Holland.