What if the only way in which our technology develops is through manned exploration? Call that silly, if you will, but different perspectives on problems do tend to lead to solutions faster.
I realize you're arguing against what-if scenarios, but they go both ways, you know...
Oh I know my mental state is affected by it. That's the whole point. I play video games to relax; I play video games to do things that I cannot do in real life. I find enjoyment in playing video games. The difference is that I can distinguish what is "evil" and what isn't. (And even that is arbitrary: can you say what is canonically evil? Is there an absolute to evil? That type of thing, to me, seems entirely subjective. Just because somebody believes differently from you doesn't automatically make them a "Bad Guy".)
I myself find playing violent video games to be cathartic; it allows me to expunge from my psyche those pent up emotions that I am not allowed to expunge in modern day society. But, again, I'm old enough to distinguish the difference between what is socially acceptable, and what is not socially acceptable. Also, to the person who is mature enough to make such a distinction, I find that overly gratuitous violence in media is acceptable because it is overly gratuitous; I loved Kill Bill -- I was laughing all the way through it. Socially, hacking people's arms off is not acceptable; however, I found it amusing, because the movie was presented in such a fashion that it would be difficult to actually take it seriously.
Funny thing, that. You obviously don't like any of the movies done by Quentin Tarantino because, you know, those are violent for violence sake! They are full of teh Evil Violence!
Did you ever think that games like those in the GTA series could be considered cathartic to the rest of us sadistic people? I'm not free to rid myself of angst and other pent up emotions in a fashion that society would find acceptible, so it's rather novel to be able to do so.
We've had a national debt for well over a half century; sure, it's grown considerably during the past twenty years, but it was there when Armstrong was on the moon. National bankruptcy isn't a limiting factor: take a look at the current amount of money the US is in the hole; we're still capable of deficit spending. That doesn't mean we should, mind you; it just means that we can.
Whatever happened to sucking it up? What happened to actually suppressing your aggressions? As far as i can tell, some form of civilization had existed thousands of years before people were able to take out their aggressions on pixelpeople.
Do you have proof that society has existed without aggression? Last time I checked my history-books, aggression has existed for at least the past 2000 years. Dependent upon your beliefs, it might have existed from the dawn of time itself. People, as shown by history, are violent by nature.
What's wrong with suppression? It can lead to depression, anxiety, explosive behaviour, etc. I feel that it's important to experience the full spectrum of "acceptable" social behaviour. Sure, I'm not going to go out and rape somebody, or "bust a cap on their ass" (to use the vernacular); I don't need to, as I can let out emotions associated with those activities in video games.
Teenagers are naturally drawn to porn. Unless you're an Amish who lives off in the boonies without electricity and net-access, you would be hard-pressed to keep your children from looking at porn. I did it as a teenager; most of my friends did it. People have been doing it since porn was first invented.
The thing is that sheltering can lead to harmful psychological problems with your children, just as letting them do whatever they please without any input from you can lead to harmful psychological problems. Sheltering is a very bad thing, as it prevents the child from being exposed properly to certain aspects of culture. Sure, you shouldn't expose your children to rape, or ultra-violence, etc.; however, there really isn't anything wrong with exposing them to porn, as long as you explain what it's all about.
The reason why violence and pornography are so prolific in our society is because they are cathartic releases; they allow the perusal of feelings that we normally supress. In my opinion, it's much better to let those feelings out, on occasion, rather than continuously repressing them.
By that logic, we might as well stop all AI development across laboratories the world over: as we have yet to create a spark of sentient intelligence in a machine, it obviously cannot be done, therefore we should stop trying.
Whether or not cold fushion is replicable isn't really the issue, I think. More of the issue, is whether we can still fund research in the given field. If we can still spare capital without draining the rest of our resources, I say, "Why not let the phyicists play?"
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that those are medial "esses", right? They are not "effs" at all.
I'd rather have my tax dollars being pumped into manned space exploration, rather than some idiot Texan's Holy War...
What if the only way in which our technology develops is through manned exploration? Call that silly, if you will, but different perspectives on problems do tend to lead to solutions faster. I realize you're arguing against what-if scenarios, but they go both ways, you know...
Oh I know my mental state is affected by it. That's the whole point. I play video games to relax; I play video games to do things that I cannot do in real life. I find enjoyment in playing video games. The difference is that I can distinguish what is "evil" and what isn't. (And even that is arbitrary: can you say what is canonically evil? Is there an absolute to evil? That type of thing, to me, seems entirely subjective. Just because somebody believes differently from you doesn't automatically make them a "Bad Guy".)
I myself find playing violent video games to be cathartic; it allows me to expunge from my psyche those pent up emotions that I am not allowed to expunge in modern day society. But, again, I'm old enough to distinguish the difference between what is socially acceptable, and what is not socially acceptable. Also, to the person who is mature enough to make such a distinction, I find that overly gratuitous violence in media is acceptable because it is overly gratuitous; I loved Kill Bill -- I was laughing all the way through it. Socially, hacking people's arms off is not acceptable; however, I found it amusing, because the movie was presented in such a fashion that it would be difficult to actually take it seriously.
Funny thing, that. You obviously don't like any of the movies done by Quentin Tarantino because, you know, those are violent for violence sake! They are full of teh Evil Violence!
Did you ever think that games like those in the GTA series could be considered cathartic to the rest of us sadistic people? I'm not free to rid myself of angst and other pent up emotions in a fashion that society would find acceptible, so it's rather novel to be able to do so.
We've had a national debt for well over a half century; sure, it's grown considerably during the past twenty years, but it was there when Armstrong was on the moon. National bankruptcy isn't a limiting factor: take a look at the current amount of money the US is in the hole; we're still capable of deficit spending. That doesn't mean we should, mind you; it just means that we can.
Whatever happened to sucking it up? What happened to actually suppressing your aggressions? As far as i can tell, some form of civilization had existed thousands of years before people were able to take out their aggressions on pixelpeople.
Do you have proof that society has existed without aggression? Last time I checked my history-books, aggression has existed for at least the past 2000 years. Dependent upon your beliefs, it might have existed from the dawn of time itself. People, as shown by history, are violent by nature.
What's wrong with suppression? It can lead to depression, anxiety, explosive behaviour, etc. I feel that it's important to experience the full spectrum of "acceptable" social behaviour. Sure, I'm not going to go out and rape somebody, or "bust a cap on their ass" (to use the vernacular); I don't need to, as I can let out emotions associated with those activities in video games.
Teenagers are naturally drawn to porn. Unless you're an Amish who lives off in the boonies without electricity and net-access, you would be hard-pressed to keep your children from looking at porn. I did it as a teenager; most of my friends did it. People have been doing it since porn was first invented.
The thing is that sheltering can lead to harmful psychological problems with your children, just as letting them do whatever they please without any input from you can lead to harmful psychological problems. Sheltering is a very bad thing, as it prevents the child from being exposed properly to certain aspects of culture. Sure, you shouldn't expose your children to rape, or ultra-violence, etc.; however, there really isn't anything wrong with exposing them to porn, as long as you explain what it's all about.
The reason why violence and pornography are so prolific in our society is because they are cathartic releases; they allow the perusal of feelings that we normally supress. In my opinion, it's much better to let those feelings out, on occasion, rather than continuously repressing them.
By that logic, we might as well stop all AI development across laboratories the world over: as we have yet to create a spark of sentient intelligence in a machine, it obviously cannot be done, therefore we should stop trying.
Whether or not cold fushion is replicable isn't really the issue, I think. More of the issue, is whether we can still fund research in the given field. If we can still spare capital without draining the rest of our resources, I say, "Why not let the phyicists play?"