So maybe people like being able to play as something they sure as hell won't be able/like to do in real life as the GTA franchise success has taught us.
The question is: why wouldn't they do it in real life? Because they'd get caught, or because they wouldn't actually want to take a human life?
To have the ability to do something you wouldn't/couldn't do in real life.
When you want the ability to do something one would argue is morally wrong... then I think you've hit the nail on the head (and killed it! senseless violence!;) ). Wanting the ability to kill someone is a pretty... disturbing desire. But if that is really what many humans feel but simply don't carry that out because of the fear of being caught... then I think a lot of people will have to change what they think about basic human nature.
Interesting question. I'm currently playing Oblivion on the PS3. As one of the side quests, the player is visited by someone from 'The Dark Brotherhood' (TDB). TDB is a guild of assassins.
I've completed Oblivion once through and am slowly going back, as I feel the "need," playing occasional quests and exploring... paying less attention to the main story line. I never did the Dark Brotherhood quest line, simply because I actually felt guilty about even virtually murdering someone.... not to mention that I don't WANT to begin to enjoy murder, even if only virtually.
Here's where I split. It is very common for the player to encounter human (or humanoid) bandits - AKA "Bad Guys". I have no problem killing the bad guys and actually find killing the bad guy humanoids rather easy.
And in some way, you feel almost like a good policeman must feel when stopping a crime. Justice and all that.
There-in lies the question. Who's innocent? Who's guilty?
You missed one question: who gets to deal out justice once the previous two questions have been answered?
Then this game comes along and says, "Kill this person" and you will be rewarded.
Seems like that would not be too unlike what happens in the real world. I doubt people get into crime without any promise of reward, whether that's physical (e.g., money) or non-physical reward (e.g., fame, glory, initiation...).
all of them - I'm now (in the game) the head of "The Dark Brotherhood."
Question: why did you feel it necessary to complete an unnecessary part of the game that you actually didn't like completing? What did it fulfill? I feel like a psychologist, even though I disagree with any psychology that goes past simply observing behavioral patterns (to suggest that we know why someone does something is pretty bold). But seriously - what is it in the game that made you want to complete it even though you didn't want to complete it? It's an interesting question to ask, because why is real life any different? If you are willing to do something you don't "want" to do for some reason because the reason to do it outweighs it... well, I think it does start showing some parts of our human moral nature/decision making.
As for GTA, I'm not even interested in playing the game. "Killing" make-believe monsters and make-believe bad guys are one thing. "Killing" make-believe innocents are quite another and, to me, objectionable.
I have never had an interest in GTA. I think it's, in a word, "gross." I have never heard a good argument for how people can enjoy GTA completely unattached from the real world, as though what we pretend to be/do in a video game has no effect on what we actually are/do in real life.
I'm sure there's a whole generation of real-life psychologists that will sit down and analyze this aspect of the virtual world and games.
So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general? Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?
I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc. My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?
Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?
I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play. The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening. However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.
In my worldview, people are bad to begin with. Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are. It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience"... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are. It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.
So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent. What should we do?
The bible scholars ignore that and explain it away, deny and ignore it. They don't want to touch it. It is so stupid, so abhorrent to reason it's radioactive but it is in the bible.
I'd like to meet these "Bible scholars." Are they the kind of scholars that don't care if it is right or wrong in the first place? I've talked to plenty of Bible - and even Hebrew - scholars that talk about that passage. "Touch it," as you say.
It's Genesis 5 and right off the top it seems to say that angels (sons of god) had sex with humans (daughters of men) and begot giants (nephilim). It's the setup and reason for the flood.
That appears to be what it says, indeed. Why not let it say that?
A close reading shows Noah and his family wasn't chosen for being godly and good but for being "perfect of his generations" i.e not half-breeds!
Hmmm. I don't think that's the reason. Where is this "close reading" ?
No bible scholar is going to tell you what the book actually says there.
How many "Bible scholars" have you met? Incidentally, why not capitalize Bible, just like one would capitalize Romeo and Juliet or Tom Sawyer or any other book?
Let's let them get that covered first, then, shall we? Can you give me an example of a "developing nation" that has the basics covered adequately?
I think it's kinda funny that the wikipedia entry mentions that many "developing" countries don't like the term "developing nation" because it implies they aren't "developed." Hmmm. I wonder who in the country doesn't like that - the poor that are starving to death, or the rich that seemingly are keeping the country poor by their greed and careless attitude towards the people.
Or that "Cuba" (the nation?) has decided not to follow the "Western model." Yeah, no kidding. I'm sure the entire country is happy with their model and Castro is in power because the people/nation as a whole like him there...
The solution to hunger, as I am aware of, has never been to give them a computer. It's typically been to give them food and a source to make/grow/manufacture/whatever their own food.
Reading online about how to farm doesn't do a whole lot to a starving family in Africa. Internet access is not all that important to most starving people, in fact, I would imagine.
Isn't that anti-slashdot-zeitgeist though? Patenting something simply so someone else can't do it? IMO, that sounds like a "patent troll," just not in the typical usage of the phrase.
And I have a hard time putting so much faith in Apple, which has done plenty to not deserve said faith, that they would not advertise - if nothing else, their own products. Apple is looking for money. Just like Microsoft and Google.
Plenty of people can get their name out without, a good game will get coverage anyway by worth of mouth.
After a while. Eventually. Most people don't want to wait 5 years and don't have the money to self-promote, though. Look how many open source programs are great and not popular.
I'm confused about what we are arguing about... hehe.
1. Disney went too far into the "appeal to silly teenage girls" movies.
2. Disney decided to try to keep making money off of their old films (including awful "sequels") instead of coming up with good new films with the same creativity.
3. I think part of the reason their newer films weren't as good is that the old films were actually "family" films. The newer ones tended to be... meh, not as good.
4. Pixar has been producing good films after being acquired by Disney.
5. Disney, when they decide to NOT put in all the stupid stuff, can make a good film. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a pretty good film. Prince Caspian was nowhere near as good... they started trying to make it modern, I guess? Insert teen girl romance, mess up Peter and Caspian's characters by making them get upset at each other and proud, etc. Those sorts of stunts seem to be pretty common with screenwriters these days (another example is Faramir in The Two Towers... screenwriter said that you just "can't" have a "static" character like that on the screen).
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like less and less people care about the first one.
Good!
...people looking at *simulated* death would be just as foreign.
Not just looking at, but causing.
So maybe people like being able to play as something they sure as hell won't be able/like to do in real life as the GTA franchise success has taught us.
The question is: why wouldn't they do it in real life? Because they'd get caught, or because they wouldn't actually want to take a human life?
To have the ability to do something you wouldn't/couldn't do in real life.
When you want the ability to do something one would argue is morally wrong... then I think you've hit the nail on the head (and killed it! senseless violence! ;) ). Wanting the ability to kill someone is a pretty ... disturbing desire. But if that is really what many humans feel but simply don't carry that out because of the fear of being caught... then I think a lot of people will have to change what they think about basic human nature.
Interesting question. I'm currently playing Oblivion on the PS3. As one of the side quests, the player is visited by someone from 'The Dark Brotherhood' (TDB). TDB is a guild of assassins.
I've completed Oblivion once through and am slowly going back, as I feel the "need," playing occasional quests and exploring... paying less attention to the main story line. I never did the Dark Brotherhood quest line, simply because I actually felt guilty about even virtually murdering someone.... not to mention that I don't WANT to begin to enjoy murder, even if only virtually.
Here's where I split. It is very common for the player to encounter human (or humanoid) bandits - AKA "Bad Guys". I have no problem killing the bad guys and actually find killing the bad guy humanoids rather easy.
And in some way, you feel almost like a good policeman must feel when stopping a crime. Justice and all that.
There-in lies the question. Who's innocent? Who's guilty?
You missed one question: who gets to deal out justice once the previous two questions have been answered?
Then this game comes along and says, "Kill this person" and you will be rewarded.
Seems like that would not be too unlike what happens in the real world. I doubt people get into crime without any promise of reward, whether that's physical (e.g., money) or non-physical reward (e.g., fame, glory, initiation...).
all of them - I'm now (in the game) the head of "The Dark Brotherhood."
Question: why did you feel it necessary to complete an unnecessary part of the game that you actually didn't like completing? What did it fulfill? I feel like a psychologist, even though I disagree with any psychology that goes past simply observing behavioral patterns (to suggest that we know why someone does something is pretty bold). But seriously - what is it in the game that made you want to complete it even though you didn't want to complete it? It's an interesting question to ask, because why is real life any different? If you are willing to do something you don't "want" to do for some reason because the reason to do it outweighs it ... well, I think it does start showing some parts of our human moral nature/decision making.
As for GTA, I'm not even interested in playing the game. "Killing" make-believe monsters and make-believe bad guys are one thing. "Killing" make-believe innocents are quite another and, to me, objectionable.
I have never had an interest in GTA. I think it's, in a word, "gross." I have never heard a good argument for how people can enjoy GTA completely unattached from the real world, as though what we pretend to be/do in a video game has no effect on what we actually are/do in real life.
I'm sure there's a whole generation of real-life psychologists that will sit down and analyze this aspect of the virtual world and games.
no one in their right mind would plug a windows box directly into an open Internet connection.
There are a lot of people that don't act as though they are in their right minds even without getting technology involved.
Good quote.
So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general? Or eat people, as someone mentioned in Prototype (never played it)?
I'm not trying to say degradation of society is directly linked to violence in video games, that playing violent video games causes you to murder, etc. My question is this: why DO people enjoy games simulating things that ought to be horrific to us?
Example: most people don't think that brutally raping a young girl (say, 8 years old) and then slaughtering her is particularly good. What would people say to a video game where you play a protagonist that brutally rapes a young girl and then slaughters her. One is doing it in real life, one is doing it virtually; both in order to do it virtually, there must be some desire to "do it," right?
I think that's where the shock at these video games comes into play. The idea that "normal" people have a desire to pretend to be a terrorist killing innocent civilians is frightening. However, because of a worldview - that is, that people are "neutral" or clean slates and develop morality from there - people think that society should squash these video games in an effort to prevent people from being wired to be terrorists or murderers.
In my worldview, people are bad to begin with. Wanting to play these games is an outworking of who they are, not part of what forms who they are. It may or may not condition them to be less influenced by social constructs and likely helps, as the Christians say, "sear their conscience" ... but IMO, games like these prove one thing to me: that people inherently seem to like violence and war, and that simply shows humanity who they really are. It's not the fault of video games that people like violence; it's the fault of people liking violence that we have video game violence.
So it seems like the response should be this: wow, human nature is pretty violent. What should we do?
Silly me for thinking that a literary work could be called a word that means something.
Like, oh... Odyssey...
I'm sure we could come up with a better term than "vishing".
Like voice phishing? ;)
The bible scholars ignore that and explain it away, deny and ignore it. They don't want to touch it. It is so stupid, so abhorrent to reason it's radioactive but it is in the bible.
I'd like to meet these "Bible scholars." Are they the kind of scholars that don't care if it is right or wrong in the first place? I've talked to plenty of Bible - and even Hebrew - scholars that talk about that passage. "Touch it," as you say.
It's Genesis 5 and right off the top it seems to say that angels (sons of god) had sex with humans (daughters of men) and begot giants (nephilim). It's the setup and reason for the flood.
That appears to be what it says, indeed. Why not let it say that?
A close reading shows Noah and his family wasn't chosen for being godly and good but for being "perfect of his generations" i.e not half-breeds!
Hmmm. I don't think that's the reason. Where is this "close reading" ?
No bible scholar is going to tell you what the book actually says there.
How many "Bible scholars" have you met? Incidentally, why not capitalize Bible, just like one would capitalize Romeo and Juliet or Tom Sawyer or any other book?
I think I am more worried about pilots updating their facebook pages and overshooting their destination airport by 150 miles.
That's getting dealt with
22 fires out of how many millions of flights, of which none resulted in any catastrophe..
Your opinion may be different if you were in one of those flights with one of the 22 fires.
Nah. Just burn it.
I agree about the money portion, but it's already apparently hit the nytimes. Isn't that "main stream media in the states" ?
How is this "invasion" if you need to willingly put on a special pair of goggles that enable it?
It's sort of like calling someone accepting a gift at Christmas robbery or theft..
every kid's got a camera these days.
... every kid in Latvia, too?
people are going to come on and call me a troll or flamebot of what ever else but who cares.
You're right. That's because you are trolling/flaming. It's pretty simple.
You're main point could have been boiled down to: "I hate windows."
Maybe slashdot should change their slogan to "opinions for nerds" then ;)
Once you've got the basic stuff covered
Let's let them get that covered first, then, shall we? Can you give me an example of a "developing nation" that has the basics covered adequately?
I think it's kinda funny that the wikipedia entry mentions that many "developing" countries don't like the term "developing nation" because it implies they aren't "developed." Hmmm. I wonder who in the country doesn't like that - the poor that are starving to death, or the rich that seemingly are keeping the country poor by their greed and careless attitude towards the people.
Or that "Cuba" (the nation?) has decided not to follow the "Western model." Yeah, no kidding. I'm sure the entire country is happy with their model and Castro is in power because the people/nation as a whole like him there...
The solution to hunger, as I am aware of, has never been to give them a computer. It's typically been to give them food and a source to make/grow/manufacture/whatever their own food.
Reading online about how to farm doesn't do a whole lot to a starving family in Africa. Internet access is not all that important to most starving people, in fact, I would imagine.
Isn't that anti-slashdot-zeitgeist though? Patenting something simply so someone else can't do it? IMO, that sounds like a "patent troll," just not in the typical usage of the phrase.
And I have a hard time putting so much faith in Apple, which has done plenty to not deserve said faith, that they would not advertise - if nothing else, their own products. Apple is looking for money. Just like Microsoft and Google.
Apple, a company utterly obsessed with aesthetics, good design, and usability, would put ads in their operating system?
And marketing. Don't forget marketing. Maybe Apple wants to show their own ads?
not be able to use it ... without licensing.
Plenty of people can get their name out without, a good game will get coverage anyway by worth of mouth.
After a while. Eventually. Most people don't want to wait 5 years and don't have the money to self-promote, though. Look how many open source programs are great and not popular.
I'm confused about what we are arguing about... hehe.
1. Disney went too far into the "appeal to silly teenage girls" movies.
2. Disney decided to try to keep making money off of their old films (including awful "sequels") instead of coming up with good new films with the same creativity.
3. I think part of the reason their newer films weren't as good is that the old films were actually "family" films. The newer ones tended to be... meh, not as good.
4. Pixar has been producing good films after being acquired by Disney.
5. Disney, when they decide to NOT put in all the stupid stuff, can make a good film. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was a pretty good film. Prince Caspian was nowhere near as good... they started trying to make it modern, I guess? Insert teen girl romance, mess up Peter and Caspian's characters by making them get upset at each other and proud, etc. Those sorts of stunts seem to be pretty common with screenwriters these days (another example is Faramir in The Two Towers ... screenwriter said that you just "can't" have a "static" character like that on the screen).
Yes, I realize it was a book adaption. Most of the "old school" Disney animated films were adaptations, too... :)
I actually did Vista -> RC -> RTM upgrades. Still running fine.