Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.

The networks could just take shows like "American Gladiator" & UFC and just "up the stakes"...I'm sure Red Bull & Budwieser would jump at the chance to sponser them.

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.

The networks could just take shows like "American Gladiator" & UFC and just "up the stakes"...I'm sure Red Bull & Budwieser would jump at the chance to sponser them.

Red Bull/Budwieser tag team go!

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I'm slightly confused. Was Ian Sturocks point that, in order to reduce violence, we should hold gladitorial games? I must say that I find the notion frightfully appealing.

The networks could just take shows like "American Gladiator" & UFC and just "up the stakes"...I'm sure Red Bull & Budwieser would jump at the chance to sponser them.

Red Bull/Budwieser tag team go!

" Ladies and Gentlemen!!!,tonight on Saturday night Slash-o-rama we have the defending Red Bull/Budwiser tag team champions Maximus & Juba going against the dastardly dou of Jervis Johnson & Gavin Thorpe in a battle to the DEATH!!.
Also on the card we have Sarah Jessica Parker Vs Lady Gaga in a veet hair removale pit match!!!..BUT!!,to get things started we are going to tie Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart together,slather them in bacon grease and unleash a pack of starving PIT BULLS!!!...All this and more coming up after these mesages from Budwieser!!!"

Yeah EF,we should definatly get in on the ground floor of this project...the earning potential is amazing.

FITZZ wrote:


" Ladies and Gentlemen!!!,tonight on Saturday night Slash-o-rama we have the defending Red Bull/Budwiser tag team champions Maximus & Juba going against the dastardly dou of Jervis Johnson & Gavin Thorpe in a battle to the DEATH!!.
Also on the card we have Sarah Jessica Parker Vs Lady Gaga in a veet hair removale pit match!!!..BUT!!,to get things started we are going to tie Rush Limbaugh and John Stewart together,slather them in bacon grease and unleash a pack of starving PIT BULLS!!!...All this and more coming up after these mesages from Budwieser!!!"

...

Photoshop. NOW!!!

Fateweaver wrote:Wrong.

Only the socially and mentally inept learn violent behavior from being exposed to violence.

I was watching R movies back when it was okay for even 8yo's to see them in theatres so long as an adult was present; watched them at home. First horror movie and favorite of mine was "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I was 12, parents let me watch it. They had no interest in it so I wasn't "babysat" while I did it but I watched it.

I was a Freshman when MK hit arcades. Parents didn't care if I used my allowance to go to the arcade and play it.

FFW 20 years later. Never been convicted of a violent crime, do not condone violence, was in 1 fight my entire life at school (the rest I talked my way out of), do not agree with the messages some rappers convey although I like to listen to rappers such as Eminem, don't hate homosexuals, bisexuals, cross-dressers or whatever.

Exposing someone to violence doesn't mean they'll be violent; it increases the odds but it doesn't constitute "auto-violent".

I think family values are in the toilet and have been for the past decade or so. I was raised where mom stayed at home and dad worked. He earned enough to where it wasn't until my senior year when mom had to get a job due to economical changes. The past 10 years has seen more and more single parent households due to higher divorce rate, women acting like whores and riding any stud that comes along and men acting the studs and laying pipe to any and everything and not caring to cap it (apparently lots of men love paying child support). With only one parent household or 2 parents working guess who raises the kids? Either the tv or the teen babysitter who spends more time "OMFGBOBBYISSOCUTE" txting her friends than doing her job so she too just turns on the tv so she can concentrate on her makeup or her iphone. Kids are impressionable and if the parents don't teach good values you get soulless pricks like the Columbine kids or the V-tech dude.

So yeah I joke about GTA and CoD because I know reality from violence. I've never shot someone in real life nor do I want to.........BUT if I have to I'll sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I not only saved my own life but might have saved the life of my brother or anyone else with me when some dude decided to "get stupid".

Surely I say unto you dudes, this man speaketh the truth. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

Surely I say unto you dudes, this man speaketh thetruth. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." — Marcus Brigstocke

I didn't say I was a pacifist.
I still abhor violence.
I also firmly believe that the whole point of building a civilization is to reach a point where it's unnecessary to indulge in it

The point of a civilization is to find security within it. The general way of doing that is to kill off all outsiders. And the best ways to kill off outsiders is generally found through the fruits of civilisation!

"If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." — Marcus Brigstocke

It's RAVE time baby!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Surely I say unto you dudes, this man speaketh thetruth. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

Wait...did Shuma just indirectly agree with Fateweaver?

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Surely I say unto you dudes, this man speaketh thetruth. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

Wait...did Shuma just indirectly agree with Fateweaver?

No way in hell that will ever happen.

I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).

Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).

I'm laughing at the fact that you have a studio audience to clap for you.

*Canned Laugh*

You just can't admit that your textbook view of the world isn't the only view.

Geez, I am shocked!!

Fateweaver wrote:You just can't admit that your textbook view of the world isn't the only view.

Geez, I am shocked!!

And you can't admit that you don't seem to know anything. About any topic. In any field. Of course my "textbook" view of the world isn't the only one. Otherwise people like you couldn't be wrong about things consistently!

You cannot disprove what I said about violence not effecting everyone equally.

I can prove it doesn't.

So I do know things Shuma. But I imagine the sheltered life you led as a probably upper middle class child in a predominantly rich suburbia skews your view of just how much or how little violence has an impact.

If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......

Well my friend, I happen to be selling the Golden Gate Bridge along with 300 acres in Manhattan that I'll let go real cheap.

LOL.

You cannot disprove what I said about violence not effecting everyone equally.

Oddly enough though I never claimed it did.

I can prove it doesn't.

I'll wait to see your scientific dissertation!

So I do know things Shuma. But I imagine the sheltered life you led as a probably upper middle class child in a predominantly rich suburbia skews your view of just how much or how little violence has an impact.

I lived in a trailer park for twelve years, but hey, don't let reality get in the way of your crazy fantasy world.

If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......

Actually empirical evidence is poor evidence and there have been dozens of single, double, triple blind, mass, micro, human, animal, international, national, public, and private experiments that prove the same thing. The human psyche reacts to violence by becoming more prone to violent reactions to stimuli. It makes sense evolutionarily.

Well my friend, I happen to be selling the Golden Gate Bridge along with 300 acres in Manhattan that I'll let go real cheap.

No you don't. You were just forced to leave your apartment, I sincerely doubt you own billions of dollars of Manhatten real estate and a major American landmark.

Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).

When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.

When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You cannot disprove what I said about violence not effecting everyone equally.

Oddly enough though I never claimed it did.

I can prove it doesn't.

I'll wait to see your scientific dissertation!

So I do know things Shuma. But I imagine the sheltered life you led as a probably upper middle class child in a predominantly rich suburbia skews your view of just how much or how little violence has an impact.

I lived in a trailer park for twelve years, but hey, don't let reality get in the way of your crazy fantasy world.

If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......

Actually empirical evidence is poor evidence and there have been dozens of single, double, triple blind, mass, micro, human, animal, international, national, public, and private experiments that prove the same thing. The human psyche reacts to violence by becoming more prone to violent reactions to stimuli. It makes sense evolutionarily.

Well my friend, I happen to be selling the Golden Gate Bridge along with 300 acres in Manhattan that I'll let go real cheap.

No you don't. You were just forced to leave your apartment, I sincerely doubt you own billions of dollars of Manhatten real estate and a major American landmark.

Science can't prove or disprove anything.....see also religion.

When was I forced out of an apartment I did not live in? I really must be asleep.

People might become less sensitive to violence through being around it but that doesn't mean those people will become violent themselves. Everyone is prone to bouts of anger. It's human nature to become angry. Possibly, even probably a person who watched one of his/her parents beat the other one daily will become more violent when they start to feel emotional anger but that does not equate to someone who grew up in a home full of abuse becoming a violent person themselves unprovoked.

Perhaps the vast majority of people growing up around abuse become abusers themselves or just plain mean. I won't doubt that and you can prove that because I do agree with you. What you can't disprove is that people being constantly around violence (like abusive homes or bullied in school or just through media (tv has as large of an impact on youth as does real life)) don't ALL turn out violent or abusive. I'm an example. My bro is another example.

Just because a few experiments can prove something correct does not make it infallible proof that that condition will automatically lead to the same end result all the time. Smoking will not always lead to lung cancer even though it's been proven it does more often than not. Consuming 6k calories in one day, everyday does not mean that person will become obese even though most people would become obese. There are lots of things science can prove but scientific proof is not the end all, be all of life.

So just because some kids grows up watching ONLY R-rated movies does not mean he/she will go and shoot up his school or go on a killing spree in his neighborhood or state to state. Are there negative effects? I'm sure there are but you surely can't claim that violence begets violence (which is what the last 3 pages have been going on about). I don't need science to prove that the affect that watching as many violent tv shows and movies as wholesome tv shows and movies has had on me is non-existant. Of course I can't prove it to you but I don't need to prove it. I imagine if you had more friends and people around you that you grew up with you'd realize that I am right.

You just can't admit it. You have to poke holes in everything I say even when deep down you know I'm right.

Besides, you'd be the last man on Earth I'd offer the GGB too.

Fateweaver wrote:
If you seriously think that every person exposed to violence for long periods of time ends up violent JUST because some college textbook says it happens or that some nut job doctor making $300/hour says it in a book......

I don't believe he said anything about every person becoming violent with absolute certainty. I do believe he implied certain things about probability which are supported by some rigorous demographic work.

You just can't admit it. You have to poke holes in everything I say even when deep down you know I'm right.

I'm not the one arguing against common psychological teachings because playing mortal kombat as a kid didn't make me commit a murder. I think deep down you should really review just what it is you actually think you know.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).

When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.

When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.

Oh I'm sorry. I don't recall asking for your input Mad.

Get in line behind Shuma and all the other brain-wahsed college flunkies.

Want to discuss computers Mad? Or women? Or guns?

I probably know as much about those 3 topics as you. Or would you rather make more asinine comments in defense of a person who thinks I can never be right and he can never be wrong?

If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too. But go ahead and keep thinking that I'm never right in what I say because frankly, I don't care if you think that way. You are a person on a computer somewhere I don't know who I will never meet.

Fateweaver wrote:
Science can't prove or disprove anything.....see also religion.

You are correct that science cannot prove anything (it uses a preponderance of evidence as a measure of utility), but the notion that it cannot disprove anything is flatly false. Science can, and has frequently, disproven many theories. The classical example being phlogiston.

Fateweaver wrote:
There are lots of things science can prove but scientific proof is not the end all, be all of life.

You just said that science can't prove of disprove anything. Do you believe that statement, or this one?

Fateweaver wrote:
I don't need science to prove that the affect that watching as many violent tv shows and movies as wholesome tv shows and movies has had on me is non-existant.

A single anecdote contributes very little, essentially nothing, to trend analysis.

If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too.

Actually I would give you a gold star and say you were doing a great job. Unfortunately instead of simple things like that you decide to comment on psychological theory, politics, economics, and foreign affairs. Things you have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no knowledge of. Thus I disagree with you often.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
Science can't prove or disprove anything.....see also religion.

You are correct that science cannot prove anything (it uses a preponderance of evidence as a measure of utility), but the notion that it cannot disprove anything is flatly false. Science can, and has frequently, disproven many theories. The classical example being phlogiston.

Fateweaver wrote:
There are lots of things science can prove but scientific proof is not the end all, be all of life.

You just said that science can't prove of disprove anything. Do you believe that statement, or this one?

Fateweaver wrote:
I don't need science to prove that the affect that watching as many violent tv shows and movies as wholesome tv shows and movies has had on me is non-existant.

A single anecdote contributes very little, essentially nothing, to trend analysis.

Had you been paying attention Dogma I never said violence doesn't affect ANYBODY. Violence does not affect EVERYONE the same. Just because 99/100 people would get lung cancer from smoking and 1 doesn't only PROVES that smoking does not cause lung cancer in everybody.

So you see. ANYONE =/= EVERYONE.

Again, science cannot prove everything. I don't want to derail this into science vs religion thread but science cannot disprove that God exists. Science can prove that not all humans get lung cancer from smoking.

It's not just a single anecdote. I don't know the sample size used but lets say they (psychologists) were able to study 1,000,000 people from birth to age 65 who were specifically exposed to violence on a daily basis from birth until the age of 65 the doctors would find that not everyone will become violent after 65 years of being subject to violence. Some would be unaffected by it. Even if that percentage is as low as 1% it still proves that violence does not affect everyone equally.

That is my point. I'm not saying violence has no affect. I'm saying it does not affect everybody the same way. Shuma and a few others say I don't know what I'm talking about. It is simple math.

If 1 person is unaffected by something than that automatically discredits theories that ALL would be affected by that same stimuli/situation.

If you have 100 pieces of candy and I take 99 I did not take ALL your candy, I took SOME of your candy. If I take all 100 pieces than I took it ALL. Simple enough or should I draw a pie chart?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too.

Actually I would give you a gold star and say you were doing a great job. Unfortunately instead of simple things like that you decide to comment on psychological theory, politics, economics, and foreign affairs. Things you have proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no knowledge of. Thus I disagree with you often.

You just can't give up can you Shuma?

I'd like to believe that you'd agree with me if I said the sky was blue but I know you'd try to get all scientific and gak and use anecdotes like "it's not blue at night" or "it's not blue in the dawn when it has a pinkish/reddish hue to it".

I'm laughing over here because you think I'm saying what I'm not and then trying to argue it. Reread carefully. Not one comment of mine did I say anywhere that violence doesn't have a negative impact on people because it didn't on me. I said kids exposed to violence early on don't all become psychotics and I can prove that's the case. Just because it might be single digit percentile that can live through violence and end up "normal" in life doesn't mean that my theories and beliefs are any more wrong than someone with a PhD who wrote it in a book.

Go ahead though and keep believing that because a doctor wrote it that is must have some merit. I mean the global-warming scientists have written reports and published findings that we are causing global warming, even though 90% of the worlds population thinks that's a crock of gak. So you see, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they necessarily know what they are talking about or even being honest.

Fateweaver wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).

When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.

When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.

Oh I'm sorry. I don't recall asking for your input Mad.

This is a forum. For open discussion. If this were a PM conversation, that would be understandable.

Get in line behind Shuma and all the other brain-wahsed college flunkies.

I can't tell whether you fear the educated or just can't spell.
You can call anyone brain washed or college educated or whatever you like, but it really doesn't bother me.

Want to discuss computers Mad? Or women? Or guns?
I probably know as much about those 3 topics as you. Or would you rather make more asinine comments in defense of a person who thinks I can never be right and he can never be wrong?

Well, I put together a computer that runs pretty well, so we could talk about that.
I've been in meaningful relationships with several women, so we could talk about that.
Well, I was in the Boy Scouts, so I'm well versed in most shooting sports, even though I rarely practice them. I also know that the 2nd Amendment is largely useless due to the Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois.
Start a thread on any of those subjects and we'll talk. I don't know if you're an expert, but apparently you think you are. While we're at it, I can name some things I probably know better than you:
Punk music and its various related genres/culture
Medieval history
Music theory/performance (Guitar, Bass, Drums)
See? I know things too.

I'll defend Shuma, because he makes legitimate points. If he says you're never right, try proving him wrong. In several threads, you have yet to do so.

If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too. But go ahead and keep thinking that I'm never right in what I say because frankly, I don't care if you think that way. You are a person on a computer somewhere I don't know who I will never meet.

It's okay to disagree with someone, even if it's on just about everything. I can't think of anything I agree with Sarah Palin on, but it doesn't bother me.
In any case, I will continue agree with Shuma, as long as his arguments are thought out, and yours are kneejerk attacks on education and science.

You just can't give up can you Shuma?

I'd like to believe that you'd agree with me if I said the sky was blue but I know you'd try to get all scientific and gak and use anecdotes like "it's not blue at night" or "it's not blue in the dawn when it has a pinkish/reddish hue to it".

I'm laughing over here because you think I'm saying what I'm not and then trying to argue it. Reread carefully. Not one comment of mine did I say anywhere that violence doesn't have a negative impact on people because it didn't on me. I said kids exposed to violence early on don't all become psychotics and I can prove that's the case. Just because it might be single digit percentile that can live through violence and end up "normal" in life doesn't mean that my theories and beliefs are any more wrong than someone with a PhD who wrote it in a book.

Go ahead though and keep believing that because a doctor wrote it that is must have some merit. I mean the global-warming scientists have written reports and published findings that we are causing global warming, even though 90% of the worlds population thinks that's a crock of gak. So you see, just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they necessarily know what they are talking about or even being honest.

Gold star good job!

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I think he is laughing at the thought that I am right since apparently only Shuma is ever right (at least in his own mind).

When it comes down to Shuma or you, yeah, he's right a good 90-99% of the time.

When it comes down to you and anyone who doesn't have a Reagan-praising signature, they're probably right too.

Oh I'm sorry. I don't recall asking for your input Mad.

This is a forum. For open discussion. If this were a PM conversation, that would be understandable.

Get in line behind Shuma and all the other brain-wahsed college flunkies.

I can't tell whether you fear the educated or just can't spell.
You can call anyone brain washed or college educated or whatever you like, but it really doesn't bother me.

Want to discuss computers Mad? Or women? Or guns?
I probably know as much about those 3 topics as you. Or would you rather make more asinine comments in defense of a person who thinks I can never be right and he can never be wrong?

Well, I put together a computer that runs pretty well, so we could talk about that.
I've been in meaningful relationships with several women, so we could talk about that.
Well, I was in the Boy Scouts, so I'm well versed in most shooting sports, even though I rarely practice them. I also know that the 2nd Amendment is largely useless due to the Supreme Court case Presser v. Illinois.
Start a thread on any of those subjects and we'll talk. I don't know if you're an expert, but apparently you think you are. While we're at it, I can name some things I probably know better than you:
Punk music and its various related genres/culture
Medieval history
Music theory/performance (Guitar, Bass, Drums)
See? I know things too.

I'll defend Shuma, because he makes legitimate points. If he says you're never right, try proving him wrong. In several threads, you have yet to do so.

If I said most grass was green Shuma would find some way to argue with me about it. If I said the sky was blue he would find some way to argue about that too. But go ahead and keep thinking that I'm never right in what I say because frankly, I don't care if you think that way. You are a person on a computer somewhere I don't know who I will never meet.

It's okay to disagree with someone, even if it's on just about everything. I can't think of anything I agree with Sarah Palin on, but it doesn't bother me.
In any case, I will continue agree with Shuma, as long as his arguments are thought out, and yours are kneejerk attacks on education and science.

Do you not understand English Mad? He can't prove me wrong on the topic of violence and it's effects on people. He cites books and case studies proving violence does effect people. I'm not saying it doesn't. Furthermore he and Dogma are equating "majority" with "all".

Now I'm not sure what school he went to from k-12 but can you not agree that "majority" =/= "all". Not "all" (there is that word again) kids exposed to violence become violent as adults. The "majority" of them probably do but again "majority" does not equal "all".

If you can't see that than I don't know how the hell you ever made it past 1st grade. If I take the majority of your cookies and eat them I did not take ALL of them.

Is it clear to you now? Need I draw a picture?

So again, go on thinking that once again I'm wrong and that I'm attacking the educated and science. I'm attacking flawed logic and obviously if educated means having the capacity for logic that some posters on here have because they are in college or graduated college than I'm glad I'm considered "uneducated."

HOORAY FOR THE OT BOARD !