Is everything with you a double think? Maybe ya, know, lot of people like blowing stuff up. It is a universal obsession. We know that these obsession if acted in real life, hurt like hell.
(Off-topic: I am working a tetris clone and planning a multiplayer tetris in which cooperative or competitve behaviors are explored)
Quite a few, including LS, who seems to think that I’m bitter about not being a mod anymore. Little does he know that I see through him, and that should he not like being called out for his behavior–perhaps he should change his behavior.
Or are celebrities, because anything a celebrity says must be true. After all: they’re celebrities.
Far too many.
State-run education isn’t for learning anything good; it’s for making good little sheep.
???
And maybe some people don’t. So?
Not for Wilderness and I. I suspect there are more people in the world who feel the way we do.
And yet millions of people do it in real life as well. Again note, not everyone.
I don’t know if you’re trying to make an argument or just standing up for gamers, but the issue isn’t playing games. I think I have already provided proof about America’s Army which refutes the original objections to the state encouraged desentivity to violence that was defended by some gamers here.
Whatever you want to eat, smoke drink or put into your mind, is your business. But if you’re really against violence, I am pointing out that simulating violence seems to be a contradiction of that. Unless the argument is made that it is different from real violence, to which I will reply that so is simulated rape. And if you’re ok with one based on the premise that it is not real, then you really can’t condemn the other. And if that is your position, more power to you. It’s not mine.
Right, so you assumed. At least you apologized. Thank you. Apology accepted.
I see no sense in equivocating simulated rape and violence as actual rape and violence. It is simply a matter of what constitutes as facts.
Fair enough. I think you are the first person in this thread to admit this. Thanks.
But it isn’t. The fictional is just that: fictional. Not real. Spider-man doesn’t really exist.
Lol yeah man- it was a misunderstanding- which is why I accepted that I couldn’t find where you quoted the things in my response to you- oh well things get blown out of proportion sometimes but no big deal.
It is good that you admit that you are speaking not from a libertarian perspective, but from some type of pacifist perspective.
He’s also speaking out of some bizarro-world perspective where black is white, freedom is slavery, and there’s no difference between fantasy and reality. And it looks like he doesn’t like that fact being pointed out to him.
I know I was addressing the psychological aspect, which is not logic or epistemology, etc…(though obviously those two and other philosophical understandings play their part in the psyche formation). When I say psychological what I mean is: ‘the way an individual thinks’. That’s why I brought up propaganda which targets the psyche of individuals to the point that logic can be blinded. How deeply penetrating propaganda gets into the psyche of an individual would be an interesting study, but that is beyond the scope of my insight.
But I am speaking from a libertarian perspective, because I am a libertarian and nothing I have written is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Don’t tell me you digital tough guys can’t stand a conversation questioning your chosen means in relation to your ends? I thought you guys could incinerate cities with a few button clicks? Only tough with your joystick in your hands?
This is the sort of strawman rubbish I expect from statists, not from you. The opposite of murder and property destruction is not pacifism.
You don’t really get to say this.
As far as I saw you did not discriminate, but came out against virtual violence in general, not specifically against virtual murder and destruction of property.
The biggest part of virtual violence taking place in games consists of violence between willing participants. All PvP gaming is of this type. Also prevalent type of virtual violence is defensive or retaliatory violence. Most violent single player games put the player in position of thwarting some evil scheme or a giant invasion by the hordes of the undead and the legions of hell. The smallest part of violence in games consists of murder or destruction of property by player. If I recall your initial post referenced WoW where the violence does not take the form of murder, but of deadly duels.
But frankly we do not even need to go there. It is clear you commit a mistake even much before this. Violent games do not simulate violence. Violent games simulate acts. Acts which are in real life violent, but which are in a game violence-free.
These games are by and large played because (in a game, as in real-life) such acts provide one with a thrill. Not a thrill of inflicting violence, but a thrill of contest and of danger. Like it or not a shootout is a form of contest. While it is a contest few would participate merely for sport in real life - it being violent and life threatening. In a game environment, where the mechanics of the act are preserved but separated from the violence of it, it becomes a great form of sport. A contest of skill, no different from motor racing.
Now there are also games where the thrill derives from inflicting virtual violence. For example gone postal and rape games. Here we can call up our moral indignation, but this constitutes a small specialized niche of gaming.
Also I would personally advise against being too morally indignant even in these cases lest it be revealed that the appalled party actually loves blowing stuff up in GTA, which after all is different from the aforementioned reprehensible gaming in degree only.
It is not inconsistent with libertarianism, but neither is it supported by it. You have said as much yourself, for example with the “all the more power to you remark”. So you recognize that your conclusion is not the only possible one for a libertarian.
I wouldn’t know about a tough guy. I usually play the sneaky backstabbing type.
Libertarianism is based on a conception of negative, not positive liberty. Libertarianism is not defined by what it supports, but what it does not support.
That had to do with my being a subjective ethicist, and acknowledging that everyone draws their own subjective rationales for ethics.
I don’t believe I have ever claimed otherwise on this forum. As long as the core component (opposition to aggression) of what libertarianism is met then all sorts of ethical standards can be built around that. Even voluntary socialism, voluntary slavery.
Yeah, I figured that out.
No, you’re speaking from a pacifist perspective. Remember: there’s nothing wrong with violence per se for libertarians.
Don’t tell me that you have gone all tosswad Marxist on us.
And I know why you’re not responding to me: you know that you’re wrong.
Let’s try and keep the discussion here constructive.
Liberty, I think the problem here is that your position isn’t strictly a libertarian position, even if it isn’t inconsistent with libertarian philosophy.
I am reminded of the thread a few months back regarding left-libertarians. Questions of aesthetics, generosity, or other values that are not strictly related to law and the use of violence cannot be answered within the libertarian framework, as libertarianism is a strictly political philosophy (the role of violence and the state).
This does not mean that a libertarian cannot have positions regarding these things. Left-libertarians can denounce racism, but such a stance, while relevant as a human being, is irrelevant to libertarianism.
So you are saying that you dislike violent video games. Many people here obviously enjoy them. There is no disagreement so long as the discussion stays within the confines of simple preference.
lol.
Based on your assumptions, watching 90 percent of movies make you a sociopath. Most movies are much crueler then video games, and you can easily enjoy it for what it is, be sane, and hate coercion. Just watch any action movie, or crime movie. It is simply art.
You can have any opinion on not like watching violence, but associating to sociopathic tendencies is an exaggeration of its effects. Also, I think much of the entertainment or humor is on the fact that it’s not real.
^Lol indeed, I see racism as inconsistent with libertarianism. Other personal ethics, like religion for example may or may not be.
Something tells me LS is not much of a movie watcher either.
Well, LS seems to have made a point that can be safely regarded as related to ‘thick libertarianism’ - odd because he used to dislike left/thick libertarianism a lot.