A silly thing to say when man can't even define "intelligence".
Nobody needs to define anything when man can just shoot every creature in the world and still survive. That's intelligence. Man is the only creature that can defeat a creature stronger, bigger, more dexterous than it is. Do you know any other creature like that?
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
I beg to differ, there are many animals who know "pleasure", for example dolphins or elephants. Thing is, "what is pleasure?"
They all do it by instincts only. And as far as I can see elephants have not advanced any farther than they were 50000 years ago or whenever did they came to be.
Pleasure is a chemical setup in the brain. That's pretty much it. Difference is, animals don't look for it. They just do what their setup tells them to do. They have no love, no loyalty, nothing, absolute instinct. They don't live, they "do". They are like programs. Programmed to do something. While two humans can be very, very different, animals are all the same no matter how you raise them or what do you do to them sooner or later their instincts wake up and they eat ya.
Man is not an animal. Animal have no intelligence, men do, there we start to differ, you may call the behavior of man having similarity with animals but it applies mainly to the mass (low-intelligent, e.g., more animalistic). But a mad scientist has nothing, NOTHING to do with an animals, the beliefs, the drives are very different. In fact, only man has sex for pleasure and eat for pleasure and w/e, animals have it for other reasons, because they do not understand what pleasure is. Even there, they differ. Man is not an animal it's something else, something very different.
Most kids rebel because they do not trust their parents. They do not trust their parents because those do not listen to them, regard them as minors, and lie to them. Anyone would rebel in that situation.That's my point, and you are quoting the wrong person.Err, how can you be sexually active without having sex?
Perhaps you're right. I shall rephrase- Man is worse than an animal. An animal strikes when it senses danger or in order to exist upon the flesh of its prey. Man is the only organism in the world that hunts for entertainment.
We are animals, and the faster you realize it, the faster you can start to realize what our great civilization is coming to.
P.S. Animals have alot of intelligence, like the tiger camouflaging itself in the meadow, waiting for its prey. Or those nose-pointy weasles that look to the sky at night and figure out their own path home through stars navigation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] It's not death you should be afraid of.. it's life.
"World domination is easy- Comedy is hard" ~Mandy~
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature. <- Just for you, Chaos, and just because it's true.
Perhaps you're right. I shall rephrase- Man is worse than an animal. An animal strikes when it senses danger or in order to exist upon the flesh of its prey. Man is the only organism in the world that hunts for entertainment.
We are animals, and the faster you realize it, the faster you can start to realize what our great civilization is coming to.
LOL...you forget about domestic cats. I was watching the animal planet and Cats and Humans are the only ones that kill when they dont even need too. My ole cat killed everything that moved...even my albino praying mantis i found.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those before me shall quiver in my wake as I unleash the fury within!
Not really, the most of these things are passed on via genes and culture, only in some cases you can speak of "personal", for example phobias but even then they are most likely developed because of outside influence. (and in some cases also genetical)
Is not your personality shaped by a combinations of your genes as well as your environment? I don't get how what you're saying is any different than the point I made.
heh, we aren't animals because right now I'm on the internet and I'm typing on a keyboard while listening to music and thinking about doing homework later. AND I can touch my thumb to all of my other fingers effectively. We use tools, i don't think any other animals do that? I'm guessing Inevitable heard that comment from someone else and repeated it without thinking about it for 2 seconds, or maybe I'm missing something.
Nobody needs to define anything when man can just shoot every creature in the world and still survive. That's intelligence. Man is the only creature that can defeat a creature stronger, bigger, more dexterous than it is. Do you know any other creature like that?
They all do it by instincts only. And as far as I can see elephants have not advanced any farther than they were 50000 years ago or whenever did they came to be.
Pleasure is a chemical setup in the brain. That's pretty much it. Difference is, animals don't look for it. They just do what their setup tells them to do. They have no love, no loyalty, nothing, absolute instinct. They don't live, they "do". They are like programs. Programmed to do something. While two humans can be very, very different, animals are all the same no matter how you raise them or what do you do to them sooner or later their instincts wake up and they eat ya.
What does that make dogs trained by their trainers then? Can they not show loyalty towards their owners? If not, then how can you even train animals to do anything if instict is all they go by?
Second, just because we can't tell the difference between two individual animals is't proof that they're identical. The brains of animals follow the same pattern ours do. They're born with genetical pro's and con's, and the environment then shapes them into the animals they are. The cannot simply be
Third, merely going on instict seems to me a good way to die. Insects and other minor life probably do, but then agin the only have to eat, reproduce and then die.
Large mammals to me must have more than instincts. Being able to judge a situation based on the facts available and then make a decision regardin what to do is necessary in nature. Assume there's been a flood, and 100 jaguars are stuck in different trees, all surrounded by water. They all have land close by though. I would wager that some of the jaguars will jump down from their tree into the water and try to swim to land, while others will sit still and wait until hunger drives them from there. Some will have judged the situation differently. Perhaps their tree was weak, perhaps the piece of land was too far away. Either way, it's exacly the same thing humans would do. Some would probably sit, while some would swim. But the way i see it, it doesn't fit into the idea of instinct. Instincs cannot possibly work for every possibly situation an animal can be in. They have to adapt to different situations, and thus have to think.
Another example are flies bashing against the window. they never learn, they continue to fly into it until they die. Now a mammal may do the same because they can't see the window, but they won't continue to jump into the same window over and over again. Thus they have learned, and all is not instinct. And to learn, you need to be able to process information selectively and utilize it. Thus active thinking which goes beyond instincs.
Quote from "Thasador" »
LOL...you forget about domestic cats. I was watching the animal planet and Cats and Humans are the only ones that kill when they dont even need too. My ole cat killed everything that moved...even my albino praying mantis i found.
Same here, our cats would bring dead mice and just lay them down outside our door without eating them.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
I don't believe in the argument that each person is different and therefor you have to protect all because one person could have the personality to be negatively influenced by for example the fiction that is games and that could influence that person to for example kill. I believe in the argument that each person is in essence the same and could potentionally become a killer because of bad outside influence of other individuals and their "moralvalues" and "taboos" and their societies "issues", or the person could have geneticaldefects, either way, "censoring" whatever media because of such potentional problems is futile.
Wait, you're saying that everyone could be a killer depending on what they see, and then you proceed to say we shouldn't censor what could possibly turn people into these killers?
We have to ask ourselves where these bad influences come from. The way I see it, they have to come from the enviroment following your reasoning. If that's the case, it should be, theoretically speaking, possible to engineer a whole society into whatever a ruler wants. Regulate the enviroment and you gradually change the inhabitants. So if violence in gaming, which is a factor of the enviroment, is censored, wouldn't that at least lead to a reduction of bad influences?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I'll have to go through this again, because I'm not catching on to what you're saying.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
I believe in the argument that each person is in essence the same and could potentionally become a killer because of bad outside influence of other individuals and their "moralvalues" and "taboos" and their societies "issues", or the person could have geneticaldefects, either way, "censoring" whatever media because of such potentional problems is futile.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Firstly, i literally stipulated that a person DOES NOT become a killer because of what that person chooses to see.
I still don't see what you mean. You're saying everyone could potentially become a killer because of outside influences from other individuals, and then you tell me in the next post an individual does not become a killer based on what they see. (I assume that by "see" you mean the same as being affected by the environment, perhaps that's not correct?)
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I'm with you now. So, going back to the argument on whether video games creates killers, you're saying kids won't go haywire just because they're playing a game where they blow people's heads off, right? It takes something forced upon them which has shaped them into becoming "susceptible", for lack of better word.
Now, doesn't that require the individual in question to be able to grasp what they're actually seeing and/or chosing? You know what you're seeing when you turn on the news, you're old enough to grasp the totality of it. But a kid can choose something without really knowing what they are choosing, they don't have all the facts and knowledge, so letting them have any game they want at 6 might not be the smartest decision still.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I understand what you're saying, but thinking that anyone is able to really grasp the totality of whats going on in the news is just naivity, the only way we're able to deal with what we see there is by distancing us from what we see, if we don't then we would go mad imo.
I agree with you, there's no way we can know everything, but we can know more than what is merely shown us on the screen at the moment, which is what I think a child may not always do.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
The kid will never grasp the emotional strain of loosing a limb when blowing someones leg away in a videogame, its nothing different then me seeing the fires in California on the news. Adults who pretend children to not grasp those tragedies are nothing more then hypocrits, because they don't grasp it themselves, unless it happens to them.
The difference I see here is that, on the news, forestfires, murder etc. is always portrayed as something sad, and no parent ever encourages it. Video games however, are supposed to be fun, thus blowing up someones leg could be interpreted as teaching a child that's fun to do.
I do not believe that to be the case with regularly intelligent people, because we can link blowing people up to what we see in other media and perfectly well realise that's not something you do in the real world. What I doubt is if a child at a young age is capable of making and understanding all those connections. Therefore there should be an age restriction, but violence in video games in themselves do not make teenages go berserk. Unless like you say something isn't clicking right, in which case something else is bound to tick off.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
I always have difficulties understanding what age restriction got to do with someone not understanding all connections.
Problem is that you simply can't verify who understands something or how much someone needs to understand something before it can become available to them.
Because the brain, which obviously is what makes us capable of understanding all connections, doesn't come fully functional. It evolves as we live and eventually become stable or whatever you want to call it.
I'm not saying we should arrest 16 year old for playing games that only people 18 are "allowed" to play. I do not think however that having a 6 year old play Postal is a very wise decision in most cases either.
What I'm saying is based solely on what I've read and heard, I haven't done any research on this topic. It may turn out that a childs ability to comprehend these concepts are fully developed by the age of four, I don't know. But unless it is, precaution should be taken.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
I also find it funny how someone could possibly understand something better when its not available to them.
Of course they cannot, but understanding something can be highly subjective and twisted from what it actually is. If an individuals ability understand what they see isn't fully functional yet, someone else can make a decision for them
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Furthermore, i find it undoubtefull that children would have more problems when it comes to what is real and what is not simply because children have a more vivid imagination.
It's not so much depending on their imagination, but it would stem from the same source. Kids have a vivid imagination, proably to make up for that they lack in explanation to the real world. And in the same way, they obviously lack an understanding of what pain, death and killing people means at an early age. Most of them anyway.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Sure, children have it easyer to believe in fiction, but then again some adults believe in religion just the same, question is if letting kids play violent videogames would make them more dangerous because they have a vivid imagination, the answer "yes" seems to be pretty paradoxal to me.
The difference being that fiction is easily proved to be just fiction and easily discernable, while religion or any form of belief in a higher power is still not proven negative.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
i got gta 3 when i was 10 and my brother got counterstrike source when we was 8 and im not 2 fucked up and neither is my brother, the human mind is built to withstand horrifing experiences, and i guess desensitisation can occour from having to many of these experiences, but is that really a bad thing? I say wat dosnt kill u makes u stronger aside from disease and dismemberment. what gets me is that we think we have evolved past the point of violent entertainment, i mean the romans liked to watch that stuff in person and in evolutionary timescale that was just yesterday. i look at stuff from the grand schem of things, we are nasty sacks of proteins and enzymes wollowing around on the face of a tiny rock circling a flaming ball of gas in a near endless vacuum of space. so what gives us the right to complain about anything when our mere exsistance is such a finite rarity? we are lucky to even exist, so shut up and enjoy wat little time u have on this tiny rock:)
Interesting. I see what you mean, and it makes sense. Either society works as it should, and age restrictions fills no purpose, or society doesn't work, and then we have bigger problems to worry about.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
problems are nonexistant they are only preceived, and so called problems have deep roots in society that if disturbed could cause more so called problems, but a problem to one person could be preceived by another to be a non problem and by the time people come to a conclusion on how to fix a problem it usually has already either evolved into somthing completly different or has resolved itself, so the people looking to fix the problem end up wasting time on an expired pipe dream while even more problems arise. this is the predicament you have to deal with when u add space and time it is called chaos, and chaos my friend is unresolvable (if we could only freeze time there would be no more problems)
Not relating to what anyone said, but Halo 2 is rated M. Overall, it's become known as a game for 12 year olds. One time I even saw a spray in Counter-Strike: Source that said: Comon, Halo 2's for 10 year olds... get CSS. Get pro. It just struck me odd that a 12 year old's game is rated M. Discuss this, go forth, and multiply.
Now, something else. Games actually teach you a lot of stuff that you might not find useful right away but today I ended up laughing. My American History teacher was like: "When the soldiers were going into Vietnam, the guerillas just started chucking grenades at them, and the Americans didn't know who was a good guy or a bad guy. So they all just started killing everyone." Then two people ask these questions: "What's a guerilla?" "What's a grenade?" And this is a specially talented eigth grade class. I mean, games taught me these definitions, and here are suposedly very intelligent students wondering what a grenade is... or a guerilla.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Remember that South Park episode Chinpokomon? In that episode, the parents are concerned about their kids watching the show and playing the games not because it was vulgar or violent, but just because it was incredibly stupid and non-sensical. I suppose a lot of games may be so, but I think a part of the rating system should consider the depth of the game and whether the its content is meaninful or not. But I understand that's pretty idealistic and those parameters would be way to subjective. But it's just a though I've had on and off about rating games.
The point of that episode was that the parents were so focussed on Chinpokomon that they forgot parenting.
Wether or not Chinpokomon is non-sensical didn't matter.
(lol, love Southpark, can't figure out the point of the Super Adventure Club though)
You're right. That was the overall point of the episode. But I still think they were making commentary on how Pokemon had been rotting the brains of so many children cause it was so retarded. Kind of like in the same way Teletubbies was also bad for kids cause they didn't even use real words.
Remember that South Park episode Chinpokomon? In that episode, the parents are concerned about their kids watching the show and playing the games not because it was vulgar or violent, but just because it was incredibly stupid and non-sensical. I suppose a lot of games may be so, but I think a part of the rating system should consider the depth of the game and whether the its content is meaninful or not. But I understand that's pretty idealistic and those parameters would be way to subjective. But it's just a though I've had on and off about rating games.
Some people might argue that a deep and making-sense storyline would suck a kid into delusions much easier (since it's a more believable storyline).
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
You're right. That was the overall point of the episode. But I still think they were making commentary on how Pokemon had been rotting the brains of so many children cause it was so retarded. Kind of like in the same way Teletubbies was also bad for kids cause they didn't even use real words.
Quote from "Doppelganger" »
Don't know if Teletubbies is bad for kids unless you play the dvd nonstop untill the child tries to turn on that television inside its belly with a knife.
Isn't it Tellytubbies? I hear that TV's are called tellys in England.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Don't know if Teletubbies is bad for kids unless you play the dvd nonstop untill the child tries to turn on that television inside its belly with a knife.
It seems like a bad show to me cause a lot of kids that are watching it are beginning to learn how to speak. And if they're mimicking what they see on that show, then they won't even be using real words to people. Obviously, the same applies here with parenting and not letting your kids watch it too much. But I would never let my child watch that show.
They all do it by instincts only. And as far as I can see elephants have not advanced any farther than they were 50000 years ago or whenever did they came to be.
Pleasure is a chemical setup in the brain. That's pretty much it. Difference is, animals don't look for it. They just do what their setup tells them to do. They have no love, no loyalty, nothing, absolute instinct. They don't live, they "do". They are like programs. Programmed to do something. While two humans can be very, very different, animals are all the same no matter how you raise them or what do you do to them sooner or later their instincts wake up and they eat ya.
Perhaps you're right. I shall rephrase- Man is worse than an animal. An animal strikes when it senses danger or in order to exist upon the flesh of its prey. Man is the only organism in the world that hunts for entertainment.
We are animals, and the faster you realize it, the faster you can start to realize what our great civilization is coming to.
P.S. Animals have alot of intelligence, like the tiger camouflaging itself in the meadow, waiting for its prey. Or those nose-pointy weasles that look to the sky at night and figure out their own path home through stars navigation.
It's not death you should be afraid of.. it's life.
"World domination is easy- Comedy is hard" ~Mandy~
98% of the teenage population does or has tried smoking pot. If you're one of the 2% who hasn't, copy & paste this in your signature. <- Just for you, Chaos, and just because it's true.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Second, just because we can't tell the difference between two individual animals is't proof that they're identical. The brains of animals follow the same pattern ours do. They're born with genetical pro's and con's, and the environment then shapes them into the animals they are. The cannot simply be
Third, merely going on instict seems to me a good way to die. Insects and other minor life probably do, but then agin the only have to eat, reproduce and then die.
Large mammals to me must have more than instincts. Being able to judge a situation based on the facts available and then make a decision regardin what to do is necessary in nature. Assume there's been a flood, and 100 jaguars are stuck in different trees, all surrounded by water. They all have land close by though. I would wager that some of the jaguars will jump down from their tree into the water and try to swim to land, while others will sit still and wait until hunger drives them from there. Some will have judged the situation differently. Perhaps their tree was weak, perhaps the piece of land was too far away. Either way, it's exacly the same thing humans would do. Some would probably sit, while some would swim. But the way i see it, it doesn't fit into the idea of instinct. Instincs cannot possibly work for every possibly situation an animal can be in. They have to adapt to different situations, and thus have to think.
Another example are flies bashing against the window. they never learn, they continue to fly into it until they die. Now a mammal may do the same because they can't see the window, but they won't continue to jump into the same window over and over again. Thus they have learned, and all is not instinct. And to learn, you need to be able to process information selectively and utilize it. Thus active thinking which goes beyond instincs.
Same here, our cats would bring dead mice and just lay them down outside our door without eating them.
Wait, you're saying that everyone could be a killer depending on what they see, and then you proceed to say we shouldn't censor what could possibly turn people into these killers?
We have to ask ourselves where these bad influences come from. The way I see it, they have to come from the enviroment following your reasoning. If that's the case, it should be, theoretically speaking, possible to engineer a whole society into whatever a ruler wants. Regulate the enviroment and you gradually change the inhabitants. So if violence in gaming, which is a factor of the enviroment, is censored, wouldn't that at least lead to a reduction of bad influences?
I still don't see what you mean. You're saying everyone could potentially become a killer because of outside influences from other individuals, and then you tell me in the next post an individual does not become a killer based on what they see. (I assume that by "see" you mean the same as being affected by the environment, perhaps that's not correct?)
Now, doesn't that require the individual in question to be able to grasp what they're actually seeing and/or chosing? You know what you're seeing when you turn on the news, you're old enough to grasp the totality of it. But a kid can choose something without really knowing what they are choosing, they don't have all the facts and knowledge, so letting them have any game they want at 6 might not be the smartest decision still.
The difference I see here is that, on the news, forestfires, murder etc. is always portrayed as something sad, and no parent ever encourages it. Video games however, are supposed to be fun, thus blowing up someones leg could be interpreted as teaching a child that's fun to do.
I do not believe that to be the case with regularly intelligent people, because we can link blowing people up to what we see in other media and perfectly well realise that's not something you do in the real world. What I doubt is if a child at a young age is capable of making and understanding all those connections. Therefore there should be an age restriction, but violence in video games in themselves do not make teenages go berserk. Unless like you say something isn't clicking right, in which case something else is bound to tick off.
I'm not saying we should arrest 16 year old for playing games that only people 18 are "allowed" to play. I do not think however that having a 6 year old play Postal is a very wise decision in most cases either.
What I'm saying is based solely on what I've read and heard, I haven't done any research on this topic. It may turn out that a childs ability to comprehend these concepts are fully developed by the age of four, I don't know. But unless it is, precaution should be taken.
Of course they cannot, but understanding something can be highly subjective and twisted from what it actually is. If an individuals ability understand what they see isn't fully functional yet, someone else can make a decision for them
It's not so much depending on their imagination, but it would stem from the same source. Kids have a vivid imagination, proably to make up for that they lack in explanation to the real world. And in the same way, they obviously lack an understanding of what pain, death and killing people means at an early age. Most of them anyway.
The difference being that fiction is easily proved to be just fiction and easily discernable, while religion or any form of belief in a higher power is still not proven negative.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
*btw check out my censored profile pic*
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Now, something else. Games actually teach you a lot of stuff that you might not find useful right away but today I ended up laughing. My American History teacher was like: "When the soldiers were going into Vietnam, the guerillas just started chucking grenades at them, and the Americans didn't know who was a good guy or a bad guy. So they all just started killing everyone." Then two people ask these questions: "What's a guerilla?" "What's a grenade?" And this is a specially talented eigth grade class. I mean, games taught me these definitions, and here are suposedly very intelligent students wondering what a grenade is... or a guerilla.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Some people might argue that a deep and making-sense storyline would suck a kid into delusions much easier (since it's a more believable storyline).
Isn't it Tellytubbies? I hear that TV's are called tellys in England.
It's the decisions you make when you have no time to make them that define who you are.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs