Agreed, I won't be so stupid as to suggest violence wasn't a part of those societies (war, religious pratices, general forms of random violence.) It does concern me, however, the mass proliferation of fake violence and it's long term effect on the population.
Like I've said in another post, desensitizing doesn't lead to you acting, per se. And I recognize that. However desensitizing can lead to apathy which is just as great an evil.
I concur. But how many generations of people can be constantly exposed to something before it becomes "acceptable" behaviour? And yes, parents have the largest responsablity, more then any developer. But if those parents are themselves desensitized how can they not pass that on to their children? It's a cycle that just gets worse and worse and worse. Look at literature, what was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now, and how long it's taken for that to change. Now take a look at "new media" (tv, video) and how quickly, comparatively, acceptable behaviour has changed. If people didn't want it more sensational it wouldn't BE more sensational. But people want it more sensational because it feeds an appetite that is quickly bored with the old, acceptable behaviour.
Desensitizing doesn't lead to violence but it can lead to apathy which some might argue is an even greater evil. It also, by definition, leads to needing more or better to satify the appetite. If you don't think people have an appetite for violence then why do the games sell so well.
I absolutely detest "real" violence. Every time they showed people in the comforts of their middle-class existance cheering as bombs went off in Iraq I felt sick to my stomache. I am not desensitized whatsoever.
I have, in fact, played hours and hours of violent video games and I've got a very good sense of right and wrong. I have noticed, in myself, a certain level of desensitization (is that a word?) to violence. I can remember things in movies years ago that would make me cringe that I could see today and not even flinch at. That doesn't mean I've accepted it as appropriate behaviour. My point is that if I can notice that effect in myself, being a well rounded person, what effect does it have on an unstable person. It bothers me the constant need to "up the ante" in the entertainment world. It's not just in violence either; sexuality, language, etc. Rating systems become more and more tolerant and let more things slide. Just think of what was an "R" rated film 10 years ago and what is an "R" rated film today. That's just 10 years. You can't tell me that this trend hasn't sped up compared to 100 years ago or more.
If people didn't get desensitized to violence, at least on some level, then why do producers (any media) feel the need to make things more and more violent? Why do you need more realistic body physics when someone is shot, or more spectacular explosions? Why does it matter if blood pools under a body on the ground or if there are photo realistic, gory death scenes? If people aren't desensitized at all then why feel the need to make it more and more graphic?
I think you missed my point. At best, I said, you would be come desensitized to violence. It's like anything in life. Eat strawberries every day and one day you'll probably realize they don't taste as good as the first time you tasted them. Expose yourself to violence every day and you'll probably respond less to it.
I'm sorry, I don't understand people who think that you can expose yourself to hours and hours and hours of violence and not become, at least, desensitized to it or, at worst, enticed to it.
* Kernel News
Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. Get all the facts Now!
www.microsoft.ca
* Get The Facts On
Linux and Windows Find Out More Here
www.microsoft.com
* Fix Kernel
Repair kernel errors now! Free Trial & 100% Guaranteed. aff
fixcomputererrors.com
This is massively off topic so please mod down, but Evolution is NOT science. In science things are observable, testable and repeatable. Evolution has never been observed, it has only been INFERRED, evolution has not been tested and as a result is not repeatable. There are no "links" in the fossil record. Evolution is a philosophy, and like any other philosophy is based on faith or belief at some level.
A quick google search on "evolution is not science" will provide you with hours of reading material from both sides of the arguement.
While I agree with the heart of what you are saying, in the context of what you are saying, I think you are ignoring the subject. It's not a question of "Do most people like/agree with it" but rather is there a *moral* obligation on the part of the developers. Moral obligation and societal acceptance, while not mutually exclusive are not the same thing. Just because a society agrees that killing your first born in the name of religion is acceptable, that doesn't make it moral. Having said that, of course, the reverse argument is that morals are in fact built off of societal rules and not the other way around.
Which comes first, the morals or the society, the chicken or the egg.
Well, I did it off the cuff knowing it would be modded down so I wasn't too worried, the answer was intended for the parent, not the populace. On the other hand, considering all the bashing of various religious and political groups I see on these boards regularly I don't have a problem with posting my religious beliefs. This is still an open forum and other people aren't ashamed to express themselves, why should I be ashamed?
I think everyone who contributes something to the general society/culture needs to consider the effect that contribution might have. I think parents and priests work on a smaller but more intimate scale then artists, sports stars, etc.
I agree that there is a fair amount of satisfaction that comes from work, even happiness. But I've also found that once the work is over the happiness fades but the happiness I get from God exists no matter how long I live and no matter what I go through.
I would have expected an off topic or an overrated or two but I'm not surprised to receive a troll or the flamebait that I got. I'm free to express my world view, not something I do here very often but I felt this time it was appropriate. They have the right to mod me down. It's not like I haven't had mod points of my own and choose to mod things the way I felt. Others I'm sure disagreed with the choice I made. I'm sure some of them noted their disagreement with metamoderation.
Or we could just make an army of Robocops or something.
Yes, and the first one would be good and decent but then we would get to greedy and make a second, and a third, and a cheesy Canadian made TV spin-off and the world as we know it would COME TO AN END!
But the first one would be pretty decent. Even if it doesn't hold up over time.
Resident Evil 4 follows series protagonist Leon S. Kennedy on an all-new adventure outside Raccoon City, the setting of the most of the previous games.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought Raccoon City was the setting for all the previous games. Which one didn't happen with in the city limits?
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for posting. Your personal experience, mentioned here in this post, carries more weight for me then any of the other posts.
Agreed, I won't be so stupid as to suggest violence wasn't a part of those societies (war, religious pratices, general forms of random violence.) It does concern me, however, the mass proliferation of fake violence and it's long term effect on the population.
Like I've said in another post, desensitizing doesn't lead to you acting, per se. And I recognize that. However desensitizing can lead to apathy which is just as great an evil.
I concur. But how many generations of people can be constantly exposed to something before it becomes "acceptable" behaviour? And yes, parents have the largest responsablity, more then any developer. But if those parents are themselves desensitized how can they not pass that on to their children? It's a cycle that just gets worse and worse and worse. Look at literature, what was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now, and how long it's taken for that to change. Now take a look at "new media" (tv, video) and how quickly, comparatively, acceptable behaviour has changed. If people didn't want it more sensational it wouldn't BE more sensational. But people want it more sensational because it feeds an appetite that is quickly bored with the old, acceptable behaviour.
Desensitizing doesn't lead to violence but it can lead to apathy which some might argue is an even greater evil. It also, by definition, leads to needing more or better to satify the appetite. If you don't think people have an appetite for violence then why do the games sell so well.
Boxing isn't real violence?
I have, in fact, played hours and hours of violent video games and I've got a very good sense of right and wrong. I have noticed, in myself, a certain level of desensitization (is that a word?) to violence. I can remember things in movies years ago that would make me cringe that I could see today and not even flinch at. That doesn't mean I've accepted it as appropriate behaviour. My point is that if I can notice that effect in myself, being a well rounded person, what effect does it have on an unstable person. It bothers me the constant need to "up the ante" in the entertainment world. It's not just in violence either; sexuality, language, etc. Rating systems become more and more tolerant and let more things slide. Just think of what was an "R" rated film 10 years ago and what is an "R" rated film today. That's just 10 years. You can't tell me that this trend hasn't sped up compared to 100 years ago or more.
If people didn't get desensitized to violence, at least on some level, then why do producers (any media) feel the need to make things more and more violent? Why do you need more realistic body physics when someone is shot, or more spectacular explosions? Why does it matter if blood pools under a body on the ground or if there are photo realistic, gory death scenes? If people aren't desensitized at all then why feel the need to make it more and more graphic?
I think you missed my point. At best, I said, you would be come desensitized to violence. It's like anything in life. Eat strawberries every day and one day you'll probably realize they don't taste as good as the first time you tasted them. Expose yourself to violence every day and you'll probably respond less to it.
I'm sorry, I don't understand people who think that you can expose yourself to hours and hours and hours of violence and not become, at least, desensitized to it or, at worst, enticed to it.
...on that article
Sponsored Links
* Kernel News
Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. Get all the facts Now!
www.microsoft.ca
* Get The Facts On
Linux and Windows Find Out More Here
www.microsoft.com
* Fix Kernel
Repair kernel errors now! Free Trial & 100% Guaranteed. aff
fixcomputererrors.com
A quick google search on "evolution is not science" will provide you with hours of reading material from both sides of the arguement.
Which comes first, the morals or the society, the chicken or the egg.
Well, I did it off the cuff knowing it would be modded down so I wasn't too worried, the answer was intended for the parent, not the populace. On the other hand, considering all the bashing of various religious and political groups I see on these boards regularly I don't have a problem with posting my religious beliefs. This is still an open forum and other people aren't ashamed to express themselves, why should I be ashamed?
I think everyone who contributes something to the general society/culture needs to consider the effect that contribution might have. I think parents and priests work on a smaller but more intimate scale then artists, sports stars, etc.
I agree that there is a fair amount of satisfaction that comes from work, even happiness. But I've also found that once the work is over the happiness fades but the happiness I get from God exists no matter how long I live and no matter what I go through.
Wanna bet you won't get modded troll for that comment? lol. At least you've got an opinion, even if I don't agree with it.
Thank you, that put a smile on my face. lol
I would love to see one of these copies to have no posts relating to the topic but instead every single post is crying out "DUPE"
I would have expected an off topic or an overrated or two but I'm not surprised to receive a troll or the flamebait that I got. I'm free to express my world view, not something I do here very often but I felt this time it was appropriate. They have the right to mod me down. It's not like I haven't had mod points of my own and choose to mod things the way I felt. Others I'm sure disagreed with the choice I made. I'm sure some of them noted their disagreement with metamoderation.
That's because real happiness only comes from God. Just my 2 cents.
Yes, and the first one would be good and decent but then we would get to greedy and make a second, and a third, and a cheesy Canadian made TV spin-off and the world as we know it would COME TO AN END!
But the first one would be pretty decent. Even if it doesn't hold up over time.
actually, I think it's the marketting people who do that.
no. it doesn't.
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought Raccoon City was the setting for all the previous games. Which one didn't happen with in the city limits?