Violence in LDs?

[Lumessence (Adrift)]

Ontop of that… Im not one to believe in these isolated tests with subjects… I’ve had an 80% chance to roll below 80, and It took me 4 rolls. If i had rolled about 1000 times, im sure it would better conclude that there is infact around 80 sides that I don’t want it to roll on. So until these tests cover an extensive amount of people, I don’t believe it can be called accurate.

It could very well be that the people they used for the test volenteered because they were acceptance of violence, or let it get into their head more than others.

Afterall. why would the common person want to be exposed to violent things if they disagreed with it.

-edit
I meant to say there’s an 80% chance to roll under 80. not above.

[GreenDragon]

@AgentO

Excuse my previous use of sarcasm to stress a point.
Apparently, it was not understood. Allow me to explain:
What I meant to say is if everyone would think and behave like you do, you would’ve been 100% right.
But since that’s not the case, other people react differently to different stimuli, and thus conflicts occur.
You being in a certain opinion or another, would hardly have an impact on world hunger or human rights violations around the globe.

Yes I understood your sarcasm, that was why I asked if this was still a discussion of ideas or if it had morphed into something else. Especially since your accusation of seeing my view as the only one, is exactly what you are doing by implying that you know some sort of objective truth about reality that I’ve missed. I’ve never said, I know I’m right, I know I could be mistaken. Your decision to use sarcasm such as you did though carries the implication that you are unmistakably right. Making this into an argument rather than a sharing of ideas. One that is totally pointless if all we are going to do is try to attack and undermine the others perspective as seemed to be the case with your sarcasm.

The fact is, both of us are talking from our perspective and both of us can be wrong. There isn’t overwhelming scientific evidence either way as was elegantly illustrated in Rhewin’s post.

This is exactly what I mean. You tend to take the trivial or most common case as the only one, and dismiss the rest with other trivial claims like the ones above.
This is where I believe the fallacy of your argument lies.
I do not see a reason to repeat my stance as I have nothing new to say about it.
I will only say that, good kids with great parents can get addicted to drugs (for example), or get exposed without the parents’ knowledge to various types of content.

Sure they can, but just being exposed isn’t enough. I’m saying from my perspective the person (even if it was a child) needs to have serious issues with their life at a material level, for them to become violent in reality. I’m also saying that that experience on the material level is responsible, not the violent media. Lumessence experiences above really illustrate the importance of material experiences in formation of character.

There are many stages of development for the human mind and consciousness, and the amount of influence each experience has is unknown. Had it been known, we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place. So dismissing it all so lightly is something I (for example) would never do.
In fact, given my own personal experience, I can definitely say that there is a discernible influence and I can point on such experiences that affected my growth and mentality. Of course these experiences are personal and I am not going to expose them. All I can say from my experience, that at least for me, that amount of impact an event has, depends on the level of importance I attributed to it as a kid. (subconsciously of course)

To me this only seems to reinforces what I’ve been saying, violent media engaged in knowing it’s a fantasy is not of high importance. Things threatening your physical security would be however and be the formative events not video games.

Here is exactly where I disagree with you. I do not believe our genes depict our behaviour and violent tendencies. I don’t agree with all those science fiction movies that show a genetic test that can discern whether someone is more or less likely to develop violent tendencies. I believe much of such behavior is acquired.
This is the cause for our disagreement, I believe.

I’m not saying it can only be caused by genetics, but certainly I am of the mind they play a role in it and peoples predispositions. Also in determining how different people react differently to the same stimuli. Two brothers can be raised in the same environment and wind up with massively different attitudes towards violence. Just as one person raised in a violent environment full of suffering and insecurity can still be less violent than another; raised in significantly better circumstances.

What you say here requires a very high level of self awareness. One that maybe required from lucid dreamers, but not from the general population.
Also not everyone with such an awareness will choose to invest so much effort. Same as not all lucid dreamers control the dream, but just let it flow following it without disturbance.

I’m not convinced you give others enough credit, but I freely admit I try to see the world in a positive way, I much prefer that to seeing negativity everywhere. Nothing positive will come out of seeing life in that way, to some extent you’ll spend your time absorbed in hopelessness whilst justifying your misery by characterizing it as a rejection of naive ideals. Of course there are a few, maybe even many who it will never be more than mindless fun, but not everybody. I still maintain that for those people, it does no harm so the net effect is positive.

[Lumessence (Adrift)]

Dragon. Agent.

FIrst of all, I just thought I’d point out… You are both misunderstanding what the other is talking about…

I don’t want to be putting words in peoples mouths, but this is what Im getting from you two.

Agent is saying that the effect of exposure to violent media may or may not make them a violent person, depending who that person is. People react differently to the same stimuli.

Dragon is saying that exposure to violence through fantasy is a good way to EXPLORE what violence is, and how you would react.

I don’t believe people want to be violent by nature. And being exposed to the damage caused by violence, may make you rethink it. The other option is to commit them Irl, and find it out that way. Those who do not explore violence, will not know what it means or how it harms other people, so they might commit violence without truely recognizing what they are doing, Because they do not know…

What you should be debating, is whether or not acting violently through media will impact your behavior in a way that leans you more towards violence.

I think that If it does effect you at all, it will only bring out the person you really are inside. Which is most likely due to the ratio of good and bad experiences in life.
In my opinion, those who recognize life as the priority, will be most effected by life. Their reality experiences would greatly outweigh fantasy. But also is the trueth if it is the other way around. It really depends on which one you view as the most important, and not everyone has the same priority of fantasy vs life.

To merge your two ideas, this is what I have concluded from both your contributions:
Fantasy is a good way to explore violence, as opposed to experiences irl. But because different people respond differently, you will always get some people who become violent, some people who are impartial, and some people who know how much violence hurts, so they don’t do it. If they are not exposed to violence, then their tendancies are very vague, and it would soley rely on who that person is. And to be honest, dragon had mentioned that violence is a part of survival, and this is true. If you encounter something unkown, you will be weary and want to defend yourself. Your first instinct is “am I in danger?” not “I wonder if it wants to play with me”. So it’s far more likely that you would resort to violence in a position that requires you to make a choice. Exposure through media will amplify your own ‘morals’ for lack of a better word… So exposure to violence could make people very kind and empathetic, or it could turn them into very violent people… But without exposure, due to the way life functions, you are actually more likely to resort to violence.

To my view, you are both very well correct, and not really arguing against each other… In the beginning, you guys were on the same track, but It only took a couple of posts near the beginning where this split into debating two different things… How you managed to continue to merge the views of two different things into one debate…

You guys are both on the subject, drawing using two different shapes, but the same crayon, and then debating who’s color is correct based on it’s shape.

Am I not correct in this?

I urge you both to go back and read the first few posts you both made, and how you responded.

[GreenDragon]

What you should be debating, is whether or not acting violently through media will impact your behavior in a way that leans you more towards violence.

That is what we are discussing…

To merge your two ideas, this is what I have concluded from both your contributions:
Fantasy is a good way to explore violence, as opposed to experiences irl. But because different people respond differently, you will always get some people who become violent, some people who are impartial, and some people who know how much violence hurts, so they don’t do it.

What I’m saying is that, so far as I’m concerned those who become violent, do so because of causes other than the violent media they may have viewed. To me saying watching that film helped make them violent is like concluding that breathing air causes headaches because every person with a headache was breathing air. Perhaps even worse since violent people are more likely to be attracted to violent media.

If they are not exposed to violence, then their tendancies are very vague, and it would soley rely on who that person is.

I’m not sure I quite understand what you mean here, no exposure to violent media wouldn’t result in vagueness on attitudes to violence. From my perspective at least, attitude to violence is dictated by experience in life with a certain element of genetics and of course an element of interplay between the two.

I assert very strongly that it can be a nice safe sandbox to better understand oneself, or even just a useful place to offload those angry feelings healthily and make life more manageable. Also that neither of those things are in any way whatsoever bad, harmful or to be avoided. It could of course be addictive and stunt your growth in terms of handling it, but that’s an entirely different topic. I’d still insist forcing yourself to avoid it in that eventuality is more harmful than good.

And to be honest, dragon had mentioned that violence is a part of survival, and this is true. If you encounter something unkown, you will be weary and want to defend yourself. Your first instinct is “am I in danger?” not “I wonder if it wants to play with me”. So it’s far more likely that you would resort to violence in a position that requires you to make a choice.

This is a bit more about the chemical fight or flight response. I’m not sure it’s as relevant when talking about attitudes to violence to be honest.

Exposure through media will amplify your own ‘morals’ for lack of a better word… So exposure to violence could make people very kind and empathetic, or it could turn them into very violent people… But without exposure, due to the way life functions, you are actually more likely to resort to violence.

My point is that exposure to violent media doesn’t make people anything. Life experiences, especially physical security (being physically threatened, fed, watered, sheltered, cared for and all the other life essentials) make people who they are. A healthy happy person isn’t going to turn violent just from playing the most graphic, violent and realistic thing you can imagine, even for hours on end.

Conversely, somebody who sees little to live for, feels as though the world is against them or have a complete lack of empathy are extremely likely to become violent, even if you had them watching teletubbies all day… (In fact that would send probably even a sane person crazy, but I digress.)

To my view, you are both very well correct, and not really arguing against each other… In the beginning, you guys were on the same track, but It only took a couple of posts near the beginning where this split into debating two different things… How you managed to continue to merge the views of two different things into one debate…

Violent media being causative of violent behaviour or not, are mutually exclusive views, we can’t both be right.

You guys are both on the subject, drawing using two different shapes, but the same crayon, and then debating who’s color is correct based on it’s shape.

Am I not correct in this?

I’d have to say categorically no, I’m not insisting I’m correct, I’m responding to agent’s views from the position of my own, in order to explore a difference of opinion. As I stated already, we can only talk about our views since there is no overwhelming scientific evidence either way.

[Lumessence (Adrift)]

@GreenDragon

That is what we are discussing…

Firstly, I apologize for arguing by possibly putting words into others mouths… And I reread through the posts. Im not sure where I decided that the topic had strayed. I suppose my confidence in myself is unfounded.

The first 2 paragraphs where I call names are the only two where I posted what I believed you were each talking about. Anything beyond that is my own view.

@GreenDragon

Fantasy is a good way to explore violence, as opposed to experiences irl. But because different people respond differently, you will always get some people who become violent, some people who are impartial, and some people who know how much violence hurts, so they don’t do it.

What I’m saying is that, so far as I’m concerned those who become violent, do so because of causes other than the violent media they may have viewed. To me saying watching that film helped make them violent is like concluding that breathing air causes headaches because every person with a headache was breathing air. Perhaps even worse since violent people are more likely to be attracted to violent media.

I said this incorrectly. I should have been more specific. It is possible for some people to react differently than is common, but only under rare cercumsances. Such as unstable people may be influenced by it, but typically no, it does not have any impact.

@GreenDragon

I’m not sure I quite understand what you mean here, no exposure to violent media wouldn’t result in vagueness on attitudes to violence. From my perspective at least, attitude to violence is dictated by experience in life with a certain element of genetics and of course an element of interplay between the two.

I can’t support my statement. At the time, I was thinking of a case where no one had been exposed to any kind of kindness, violence, or anything. If they grew up without being in any social situations, but… I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t happen. Nor do I know for sure that it would.

@GreenDragon

I assert very strongly that it can be a nice safe sandbox to better understand oneself, or even just a useful place to offload those angry feelings healthily and make life more manageable. Also that neither of those things are in any way whatsoever bad, harmful or to be avoided. It could of course be addictive and stunt your growth in terms of handling it, but that’s an entirely different topic. I’d still insist forcing yourself to avoid it in that eventuality is more harmful than good.

I agree with this. What I’m saying is that experiencing violence in that sand box, I believe, based on who they have grown up to be in life, they will respond to it in different ways. Some may feel terrible after harming purposefully, others may have found it enjoyable. But I believe that in itself is based off real life experiences. Why do people usually become violent? Is it part of chemical? Or is it because they’ve been hurt? Perhaps they were rewarded for doing it. There might be other reasons, but there aren’t many of those that really apply to media. Really apply to media. Sure, you’re going to be thinking about violence for a little while after watching a violent movie, but it probably won’t go any further than that. As far as I know, for a typical person, dreams have never effected their daily lives.
I know sometimes it has an impact for moments after you wake up, and maybe you did see some spectacular event that you find touching somehow. But violence? I’m a good person. But I did have a dream a while back where I was someone with power and I was abusing it. People, police, they were all trying to stop me and i just blew them away and cackled about it… I was tyrannical, but when i woke up, i was like… “oh god! that was awful! How could i do such a thing!”.,. while in that dream, i completely enjoyed it.

@GreenDragon

This is a bit more about the chemical fight or flight response. I’m not sure it’s as relevant when talking about attitudes to violence to be honest.

That may be true…

@GreenDragon

My point is that exposure to violent media doesn’t make people anything. Life experiences, especially physical security (being physically threatened, fed, watered, sheltered, cared for and all the other life essentials) make people who they are. A healthy happy person isn’t going to turn violent just from playing the most graphic, violent and realistic thing you can imagine, even for hours on end.

Conversely, somebody who sees little to live for, feels as though the world is against them or have a complete lack of empathy are extremely likely to become violent, even if you had them watching teletubbies all day… (In fact that would send probably even a sane person crazy, but I digress.)

Yes. For the most part… But it sounded like Agent was saying that it is possible, rather than that it is impossible.

Just making sure here, but are you, dragon, taking the side that it is never a cause for violence, under any circumstances? I would agree that typically media can not make someone violent, but it is possible. It has happened in the past. So to my view, it is mostly true that media will not cause violence.

[GreenDragon]

@Lumessence

I said this incorrectly. I should have been more specific. It is possible for some people to react differently than is common, but only under rare cercumsances. Such as unstable people may be influenced by it, but typically no, it does not have any impact.

I agree completely, only difference from what you say here seems to be that I label the ‘rare circumstances’ as being the cause of degeneration and not the media viewed.

@Lumessence

Just making sure here, but are you, dragon, taking the side that it is never a cause for violence, under any circumstances? I would agree that typically media can not make someone violent, but it is possible. It has happened in the past. So to my view, it is mostly true that media will not cause violence.

It may meet with stiff opposition, but yes, that is what I’m saying. I disagree with the violent media being labelled causative. As I said above the ‘circumstances’ that you refer to, as far as I’m concerned are caused by other events aside from the violent media. I’d label those events as causative not the media. I’d also be interested to explore where you said it had happened before too. Although I suspect it could result in a tense emotion full discussion.

Many people seem eager to blame violent media for people becoming violent, because its neat, tidy and gives them something to campaign about banning. It makes the world simple for them to understand. The reality is much more complicated. There isn’t one thing we can blame and set out to fix, people degenerate into violent behaviour for many reasons and some of them there isn’t even blame we can fairly attribute to anyone, including the violent person themselves.

Violent dreams are not uncommon, even in the most placid and peaceful people. I also do no believe that anybody has ever lived without engaging in ‘play’ violence. In fact as I said earlier, in mice, being unable to engage in play fighting results in retardation of mental development which proves fatal in certain circumstances. I’d be very surprised if exposure to controlled violence didn’t turn out to be fundamental to our development too. That doesn’t justify exposing children to graphic violence of course, but it should give those campaigning for violent media to be banned or be considered socially distasteful or taboo, pause.

[Lumessence (Adrift)]

@GreenDragon

I agree completely, only difference from what you say here seems to be that I label the ‘rare circumstances’ as being the cause of degeneration and not the media viewed.

It may meet with stiff opposition, but yes, that is what I’m saying. I disagree with the violent media being labelled causative. As I said above the ‘circumstances’ that you refer to, as far as I’m concerned are caused by other events aside from the violent media. I’d label those events as causative not the media. I’d also be interested to explore where you said it had happened before too. Although I suspect it could result in a tense emotion full discussion.

I was thinking about this earlier, and I do agree now. The cause wouldn’t be the media. Even under the rare circumstances, those circumstances - I agree would be the cause. I think we react and are effected most significantly by real experiences. I don’t believe people are born violent. I think there must be a reason to be that way, and I don’t think violent media is a strong enough reason to be. Life just naturally outweighs fantasy, consciously or not.

As for when I said it had happened before, I misunderstood the columbine shooting. (typical.) I actually looked it up, and it wasn’t really due to media. So no, I’m not aware of any other situation that involved violence from media.

[GreenDragon]

@Lumessence

As for when I said it had happened before, I misunderstood the columbine shooting. (typical.) I actually looked it up, and it wasn’t really due to media. So no, I’m not aware of any other situation that involved violence from media.

I suspected that what you said might have been linked to one or more of those types of shootings, hence my feeling it would lead to a tense discussion. People are always highly strung when it comes to discussing things like that, and understandably so. I still maintain that in those instances the isolation from their peers, probable bullying and problems in their home-life were the causative issues and not the media they may or may not have engaged in. To commit acts like this one has to been pretty deeply absorbed in hate, and/or view others in a very cold dehumanised way. Sprites in a video game, or actors in films just aren’t strong enough to inflict such dehumanisation. I suspect those who disagree, lack experience with severe bullying or other causative issues and don’t realise just how painful such experiences are. Comparing that to violent media, or blaming violent media and ignoring those experiences is…

[Lumessence (Adrift)]

I just recalled an interesting thing that relates very closely to the direct topic.
When I was in highschool, I was in a graphic design class. I had a friend nearby who was working on a few projects. He was amazing at creating animated works and adding special effects to videos. He made a wonderful video for the school for the student body officer elections. It included a light saber battle, one of the janitors mop handle turned into a lightsaber for it . He did a lot for the school, got good grades, never got into any confrontations with people.
Hes now working for a major animation company. I think it was Dreamworks.
Sorry, tangent.
Regardless, he was a really good person. Humorous, respectful, and just down right fun.
He was a doom player. The school we attended was Jordan High, and he made a doom map called Jordoom. It was designed as our school in an old broken down version. The layout of the school was quite accurate. He ofcourse was required to remove it from online, and got introuble for it… Though Im sure it’s still out there somewhere.

The point being, he made a horrible scene of our school, but he was a good person. He had nothing against the school, or anyone in it, nor would i suspect he ever would.

[GreenDragon]

@Lumessence

Regardless, he was a really good person. Humorous, respectful, and just down right fun.
He was a doom player. The school we attended was Jordan High, and he made a doom map called Jordoom. It was designed as our school in an old broken down version. The layout of the school was quite accurate. He ofcourse was required to remove it from online, and got introuble for it… Though Im sure it’s still out there somewhere.

The point being, he made a horrible scene of our school, but he was a good person. He had nothing against the school, or anyone in it, nor would i suspect he ever would.

This sounds like the typical knee-jerk reaction to anything involving violence and schools. I seriously doubt anyone damaged enough to consider committing homicide, is going to be playing out that fantasy in a video game and if they are, it’s not going to suddenly make it any more likely that they do it. Unfortunately the majority seem to want to stomp out all thoughts or ideas of violence at school as a means to convince themselves they are doing all they can to stop it. If only things were so simple.

I really hope your friend didn’t suffer consequences too severe for making his map…
What a world where an act of creativity can earn such scorn.

[Lumessence (Adrift)]

There was no severe punishment that I know of. I think they just demanded that he get rid of it, and not do something like that again. He didnt miss any classes during that time, so I would assume he wasn’t suspended. It was just mentioned by a friend that he had, and a few people heard about it inside the class, including the teacher, and were a little dissapointed, but it wasn’t even given any attention at all. Infact the teacher thought it was well done. Most people in even the class didn’t know about it.

So it was just one of those slap on the wrist things.