my thoughts on this… first you would have to find out if DC"s are real. That is a hard question. Furthermore, try to define “real” and you will already have a hard time.
everything in a dream is energy. Things change shape easily. What would you hurt when you hurt a DC? a projected image of your mind. When you make a drawing and then tear it apart, that would be the same in my opinion.
The question is whether you feel good doing it. If you feel OK murdering DC’s, why not? If you don’t feel OK then you don’t. It is all a matter personal morale.
I think i have killed a DC once or twice when i was in the nightmare conquering stage. I think you shouldn’t take RL rules and laws and try to apply them to your dreams.
I belive that if we did so we would be constricting our minds 2 much. Humans by nature are rule breakers, we have all thought about breaking the law, most of us as LDers probally have. Why? cuz we dont like laws, restrictions. By lding we are free.
Why take laws into a place that doesnt have any. Well said Q
i indeed know what you’re talking about, and that is indeed even more annoying. if the guy is somewhat experienced in another art, i usually just let him talk and apply whatever move we’re working on in a particularly unkind manner so that it hurts more or puts you on the mat harder, etc
"oh, i’m sorry… was that too much ??? "
9 times outta 10, they’re too proud to say “yeah it was” so i do it again
Not exactly. The Christian belief is that everyone will be judged on actions (deeds) and thoughts i.e. a judgement on love. Thus LD’s as conscious thoughts will be too. God’s rules still apply rather than my rules.
My opinion is that it might not be important whether they are ‘real’ or not.
If you are attacked, there is self-defense involved (as you mention in a nightmare example). As in real life basically… however as in a dream it is very possible to avoid extreme retribution (to a DC) and stop the DC just the same, I would try alternatives which could be more peaceful.
Of course not all RL rules/laws apply. Human laws don’t most definitely, but I hadn’t posted on human laws after all.
As a Christian who strongly feels on this things, I must tell you it isn’t personal in the sense that if you don’t believe you are allowed to do what you wish… hope you understand what I say. I believe that everyone is called (by God, not by me!) to avoid unnecessary violence everywhere etc whatever you believe… (that seems the most clear way of putting it, to avoid some people misunderstanding which is what some seem to be doing)
If anything, (I suggest) one has to examine why one is doing it (DC killing for the fun of it) and then one has to take a decision. Am I happy doing this I would ask myself, for example. Some think they can do it for fun and they take their decision to do so. Especially if it causes you some problems even as Q said (e.g you don’t feel good doing it), then perhaps you should re-examine. Some like me decide there is enough violence in the world and we don’t want it in our minds.
What if the guy (n1) moves like the wind and another guy (n2) he’s facing slips and even breaks his (n2’s) leg because he (n2) didn’t concentrate well enough and landed away from the mat?
“Oh did you get distracted???”
9 out of 10, they’re too proud to admit selfishness, no?
Some people are very impulsive and don’t think well enough before they do something.
The title of this topic was “Do DCs have Rights?” and the answer to this is no in the majority of cases.
But just because you are at liberty to do whatever you wish to do in your LDs doesn’t mean that you should.
Whatever you do, will affect you at some level. It will remain in your memory and may even desensitise you to certain actions.
For people with religious convictions the morality of LD actions is more important because we are aware of the wrongness of the actions.
This doesn’t mean that we are judging anyone else.
For example, flash back to 1652
Negro: a being given to us by God to do our work for us.
Woman: An inferior being crafted by the lord Jesus Christ to give men pleasure.
Now then, I am a rich white boy who gets off on killing slaves. Well thankfully, I simply quote these two definitions to you, you being a black woman… and well… I’M RIGHT. Yippee skippy.
Thousands of years ago man knew that he couldn’t fly… thousands of years ago man knew the world was flat.
Right now, man “knows” dreams aren’t real.
back to the definitions
THESE ARE JUST WORDS, words are invented BY MAN… who has an incredibly finite and entirely subjective way of understanding things.
God man, for real… turn the left brain down some. These definitions are not solid, becuase words in nature are finite and only mean what we intend them to mean… hence, they can be quite subjective, even where there is a GENERAL consensus on what a particular word means.
It’s like the story of the blind men and the elephant.
Now then… reality is nothing but perception.
reality is nothing but perception You don’t even know that I’m real, nor I you… I challenge you to prove that I am.
No. Because your DC have no soul in my opinion so there is nothing there for you to take.
Completely untrue and short Sighted. We learn from all our experiences and, at times you can even learn and grow from “negative actions”as well. In fact using dreams to act out and release: anger, despair, vengeance or what ever the “feeling/urge” may keep some people from acting on these feeling in real life.
Holy reality, I am refering to the English language. And, I mean exactly what the words mean.
To keep it simple. Alive is an adjective.
adjective definition: A word or phrase naming nan attribute, addeed to or grammatically related to a noun to modify or describe it.
noun definition: A word used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things, or to name a particular one of these.
Now, with killing we are refering to PEOPLE.
And, if a dream character is not a person, then they cannot be a noun. And since the word alive is an adjective, and since adjectives only apply to nouns, then a dream character cannot be alive, and you cannot kill something that is not alive, cause to kill means to take away someones life.
And if you wanna argue with what kill means, I would think you would be insaine (im serous, go to a hospital immediatly, you might be dangerous to ones around you). And, if you do not believe that a noun is what it is or that an adjetive is what it is, you need to get an eductation to learn what these words mean, otherwise it will be hard to find a job.
tansitive: (of a verb or a sense or use of a verb) able to take a diret object. And an object is a noun.
These are transitive verbs: kill, rape, torture, etc (any verb that you do to the dream character).
And, a noun is a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places or things.
A dream character is not a place obviously. A dream character is not a person. And a dream character is nothing, since it does not exist.
And nothing is not anything; no single thing. And anything is used to refer to a thing, no matter what. So, if a dream character is nothing, then
it cannot be a thing. And, if a dream character is not a person, place, or thing, then a dream character is not a noun.
And if a dream character is not a noun, then you cannot apply transitive verbs to a dream character such as kill, rape, torture, etc.
Also, a right is an adjective, and adjectives are APPLIED TO NOUNS, and since a dream character is not a noun,
then you cannot use an adjective to describe it. And, you might have this counter argument: “Well, Erik, the word nothing is a noun…”
WRONG, the word nothing is a pronoun. And a pronoun is a word that “CAN” function as a noun phrase used by itself and that refers either to the participants in the discourse or to someone or something mentioned elsewhere in the discourse. And, in the case of the pronoun, nothing, it does not refer to a noun. And, when you say I (lets say I refers to Erik) killed bob, you are applying the word kill to Bob, and the word killed does not apply to I, but applies to Erik (becasue transitive verbs do not apply to pronouns, but rather the noun that they refer to).
So, in conclusion, this proof is alot simpler than my other one, and in order to think it is false,
you would have question the meaning of very basic words like noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, transitive verb, etc;
Or, you would have to argue my premise of that a dream character is not a person and that a dream character is non existant.
i apologize to milod if i’m stealing an argument you were about to make but…
=> moogle… why is being desensitized to violence necessarily a bad thing ??? i don’t know if this argument is going to work (i’m a vegetarian btw, or whatever you call a vegetarian that can’t give up seafood) but if you do eat meat. if they people responsible for the supply chicken, turkey, pork, and beef to the market weren’t desensitized to the violence of slaughtering animals, they wouldn’t be able to do their jobs, and we’d all be vegetarians (which i’d say is a good thing, but i’m biased )
lemme think of a better example… ahhh yes, you’re christian right ??? what about the early christians who were persecuted for their beliefs ??? if they weren’t desensitized to violence perhaps they’d have been too scared to profess the christian faith… in that example (supposing you think the profession of the christian faith is a good thing) being desensitized to violence would also be a good thing because it furthered that end.
No I did not. I was referring more to the unspoken attitude behind your written words as well.
moogle
First I apologize for may harsh words they were not meant for you but, for another who I know is short sited. I have read many of your posts and I know you are not closed minded. I got the posts mixed up. I still don’t agree with you I just would have been nicer about it.
Now :
For every study that has been done on the subject of violence and TV which states that violent images causes violence. There are an equal number of studies from reputable sources that say the opposite. So it is not a fact that viewing violence causes violence it is just an opinion. BTW- did you know that the same studies you sited also claim that children viewing pornography is healthy. I’ll bet you did not know that. That is because you only hear what the “spin doctors” want you to hear. In fact I would tell you not to believe any study unless you actually can read and understand the “study” yourself. Believe me. All you have to do is have a theory and, get a group of people tougher to prove it and they will. You see there is no money in disproving something. With a few exeptions. You will also find that most if not all of the studies are funded by people, groups etc that have an agenda.
Now there are some additional arguments I want to add to your post but, I am going to save them for another day. This debate is going to go on for quite some time I am sure. So we have plenty of time
Actually I am a vegetarian who definitely doesn’t eat seafood.
They professed their faith because of the power of the Holy Spirit not due to desensitisation to violence. But this line of argument is going off topic.
milod789, I agree that studies are often flawed but in my opinion (which is only my opinion) I would believe the results of this film one.
instead of trying to present another example (all the ones that i can think of i think you could counter with the holy spirit card) i’ll ask the question differently
why is being desensitized to violence in and of itself a bad thing ??? just because seeing violence doesn’t turn your stomach and make you vomit forthwith doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to act violently… it might give you more and more reason to NOT act violently
ok i lied, i just thought of another example. take the survivors of the holocaust. would they have been able to survive (mentally as well as physically) if they weren’t desensitized to the violence that the nazis were exercising ???
granted, no one should have to endure that, but i think it’s a case where desensitization = a good thing
Not to be nitpicky, but one can also kill animals etc, not just people.
As I said before, one has to ask why you do it whether it’s true or a ‘simulation’.
Violent toys are often banned - you know for what reason - because they can incite violence, it is quoted.
In talking about desensitisation I am talking about the person carrying out the violent act or the spectator enjoying the act. If you are the victim or possible next victim you could become shocked or similar but you would still have compassion for those suffering.
Also most of the Jewish people also had their faith to help them.
The question of whether acting violently in a LD would make you more or less likely to do so in RL would vary from person to person. For some it would act as a release vavle, for others it would whett their appetite for the real thing.
BTW I think this thread is going massively off topic!
I think you did. You are trying to put words into my mouth which I did
not say or write!
If you mean me you can say it. Can’t you take a discussion where somebody doesn’t agree with you or has a different opinion?
Depends on who funds the study. I don’t hear what ‘spin doctors’ want me to hear and I make up my own opinion. I’m sure moogle does the same. You are generalising about research I’m sure.
Why do you think violent games and toys get banned?
Hundreds of studies of the effects of TV violence on children and teenagers have found that children may:
* become "immune" to the horror of violence
* gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems
* imitate the violence they observe on television; and
* identify with certain characters, victims and/or victimizers
)
