Stabbing for GTA4

[Imran Siddiqui]

What a person "likes" or "expects" is in part due to familiarization. We generally have to be subjected to something (whether directly or not) before determining a "like" in any case.

You are also ignoring the various pressures to conform to prevalent "norms" that exist in society. Entertainment can definitely affect what is perceived as "norms".

These norms had to arrive from some place before entertainment picks it up. I'm sure you are aware, if you watch TV, that the entertainment industry is, for the most part, very, very, very conservative. The "edgy" entertainment is usually done by smaller and more independent houses. If they are shown to be popular, they are picked up by the big time entertainment industry.

The "entertainment industry" isn't going to take too many chances, especially not with all the money at stake.

In some cases violence is a necessary act to protect yourself or others. That is not a glorification, and can even show violence in a negative light, as a necessary evil to be avoided as much as possible.

Even the violence used to protect others has been glorified in American cinema. Look at the old westerns. Not many showed it as "necessary evil", but the played up the myth of the old gunslingers.

Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" was a direct response to the idea that arose from those old westerns. That the gunslinging and killing "bad guys" was cool. The kid in that movie showed that normal American male and how he'd actually react in a far more true situation.

I mean actually watch some of those old westerns to see how violence was shown to be a positive. The "necessarily evil" movies really didn't come until later and were in response to what was seen as too much positive light towards violent behavior, even in putting away the bad man.

And the necessarily evil movies don't sell all that way either .

That is a glorification of violence. Which as I said, did happen.

They also are considered to be some of the best archetypes of the western genre in the 60s.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
you probably shouldn't have responded argumentarily when I pointed that out either.

Well then you shouldn't have acted like an ass to it.

As for you now trying to pass off my statement as it being a factor in the suppression of culture, that is an obvious falsehood. I left the possibility that it was a factor in feudalism's grip, attributing a repression of ideas to said system. I did not say it was a suppression of culture. (It obviously was an expression of a particular culture.)

(if not a factor in) the suppression of the civilization

A bit unclear, isn't it?

Btw, I said suppression of culture... it was Colon, who said "suppression of civilization"... well, and you.

Entertainment can distract people from dealing with other (generally more substantial) issues. Are you denying that this is a possible effect? No one has ever watched a movie, read a book, or listened to music to get their mind off their problems in your world?

Entertainment can only distract people for so long. Indicating the possibility that it was the medieval tourneys that prevented the people from rising up (or whatever) is patently absurd.

It's like saying professional sports prevents people from demanding a single payer universal health care system in the US.

How long did the tourney's last? 365 days a year? Sure, you have fun at the tourney, but then you forget how you are living as a result? Please.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Colon™
Uhm I did not claim medieval tourneys had anything to do with the rise of Western civilization. It was an anology that gladiator fights led to or mirrored the decline of the Roman civilization.

I was illustrating how the tourneys cannot be assumed to be a positive or negative factor simply because Western civilization developed.

I was more explicit on this point in the portion of my post you didn't quote, "Just because a negative factor doesn't lead to the complete annihilation of a civilization doesn't mean it's not a negative factor."

Your example relied upon the advance of Western civilization to refute the idea that such activities could have negative effects on a civilization.

Also, gladiator fights are not the only form of decadence that Roman civilization aspired to. To pretend that an analogy to gladiators would accurately predict the same exact fate for the civilization is to assume that whether or not we have gladiatorial type combat is the only relevant factor. Which it clearly is not.

Moreover, you are terribly confused yourself if you claim that tourneys were a product of suppression of civilization.

I attributed the suppression to the feudal system. And the tourneys (gladiatorial type combat spectacles by your analogy) are a product of the feudal system.

To start with, the dark ages (in so far they aren't a myth) did not extend all the way from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 15th-16th century.

I have not said anything to the contrary. I have not even dated the practice at all.

Tourneys in fact arose with the rennaissance that marked the high middle ages.

So?

I also don't think you quite understand the nature of tourneys.

That is a very insightful deduction given that I haven't mentioned the nature of the tourneys at all. It is you who made the analogy to roman gladiatorial combat (and in general, Roman decadence).

Finally, don't think the renaissance (the one that ended the medieval ages) was a less violent era. For instance criminal punishment were in fact far more cruel than they were before.

Thanks for trying to teach me a history lesson. Try dealing with what I said next time though instead.

[Wiglaf]

I would like this argument more if you were hot women having sex instead of arguing, as it stands it is lacking something I cannot put my finger on.

[Colon™]

The claim was gladiatorial fights led to or mirrored the decline of Roman civilization. Medieval tourneys were a similarly violent phenomenon, yet they took place during a time West Europe was is a broad upswing. It's a shame you can't see the contradictions.

Thanks for trying to teach me a history lesson. Try dealing with what I said next time though instead.

Since you apparently were oblivious to the fact tourneys arose during a renaissance, including the discovery of ideas and extensive trade, you damn well needed it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
I would like this argument more if you were hot women having sex instead of arguing, as it stands it is lacking something I cannot put my finger on.

Don't you mean in?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well then you shouldn't have acted like an ass to it.

I'm not the one trying to pretend my previous statement was a joke. I am quite satisfied with what I have said. You want what you said, and then argued for, to now be treated as "a joke" because of the presence of a smiley.

Then you go on and again argue for your assertion in your "joke" that you want allowed off the hook because it had a smiley...



(That's a very good joke. Unintended, but truly hilarious!)

A bit unclear, isn't it?

If at any point you would like clarification of something I said, feel free to ask. (I prefer to be vague sometimes, as it dredges up fun that otherwise might not feel like participating. You can always count on fun not asking clarification before it gets started. )

Btw, I said suppression of culture... it was Colon, who said "suppression of civilization"... well, and you.

We know you said "suppression of culture"... as a reference to what I had said, even though now you admit that I said "suppression of civilization". Thank you for again pointing out that you were incorrect. (Even though it was in response to my pointing that out, which makes your pointing it out inane.)

Entertainment can only distract people for so long.

So? You are trying to pretend it doesn't happen at all, and that allowing that it might happen is "silly".

Indicating the possibility that it was the medieval tourneys that prevented the people from rising up (or whatever) is patently absurd.

Do you never get tired of making points so demonstratively fallacious?

I never said it prevented the people from rising up. I allowed that it could have been a factor. (Are you really so dense you can't understand the difference between "a factor" and "the factor" or "a major factor"?)

It's like saying professional sports prevents people from demanding a single payer universal health care system in the US.

No. It's more like saying that instead of lobbying their congressman at the time, or being out on the streets demonstrating, or whatever else they could currently be doing to change the system, they are instead involved in other unrelated activities.

There certainly are a lot of avenues that a person can take to avoid addressing specific issues. Are you denying that this happens? No self medicating? No mid-life crisis? No "letting go" at all?

What kind of world do you live in? Sounds interesting.

How long did the tourney's last? 365 days a year? Sure, you have fun at the tourney, but then you forget how you are living as a result? Please.

That is your own conjuration, that they would forget forever or need to be entertained forever for there to be an effect. The simple fact is that major events (holidays, weekends, ect) can be a reason for people to put up with things they might otherwise not put up with. There are many reasons why these "carrots" can be effective. It can be used to create support for the system. (They see a direct "positive" of the system, but the "negatives" they face day to day might not be directly attributable to the system.) It can be a release of tensions. It can be a way of getting people to identify themselves with the system, to feel a part of it.

In the case of combat exhibitions, it can also serve as a method of "example" about the power inherent in the system. This can be a factor in people being discouraged from opposing the system. (Especially in a system which there are negative implications for expressing opposition.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Colon™
The claim was gladiatorial fights led to or mirrored the decline of Roman civilization.

No, the claim was that the rise of Roman decadence (which was in part gladiatorial fights) mirrored the decline of Roman civilization. There were obviously other factors in that decadence than gladiatorial fights. A fact which you have ignored to try to make a completely inane point.

"Some argue the cultural decadence of Rome led to/mirrored the decline of the empire." - Wezil

Medieval tourneys were a similarly violent phenomenon, yet they took place during a time West Europe was is a broad upswing. It's a shame you can't see the contradictions.

You will continue to fail to understand what I have said so long as you are unable to realize that there is more than one factor involved in both the decline of the Roman empire, as well as in Western civilization's progress.

To pretend that Western civilization's progress repudiates that violent spectacles can have negative effects on a civilization is to claim that there are no other factors which could supersede the effects of violent spectacles, whether by themselves or in conjunction with other factors.

That is truly an outrageous claim you are implying.

Since you apparently were oblivious to the fact tourneys arose during a renaissance, including the discovery of ideas and extensive trade, you damn well needed it.

"It was trade and new (and rediscovering old) ideas that brought Western civilization out of that mess." - Aeson

Wow... thanks for trying to teaching me about what I'd already stated several posts ago. You're awesome!

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson


So if we went back to fuedalism you'd expect a continuation of advancement equal to that we have achieved since?

I did not say so. But obviously, the feudal system didn't restrict progress in all cases, so one could still ask if the "feudal system" is the main cause for slow progress in the (mainly early) MAs at all.

No, the claim was that the rise of Roman decadence (which was in part gladiatorial fights) mirrored the decline of Roman civilization.

I think having gladiatorial fights is per se no sign of "Roman decadence".

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
I think having gladiatorial fights is per se no sign of "Roman decadence".

You wouldn't say having slaves kill each other for your amusement would be decadent?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson


You wouldn't say having slaves kill each other for your amusement would be decadent?

Well, maybe we should clarify our use of "decadent". I understand decadence being used to describe a cultural decline. In that sense gladiatorial combat is not decadent, but a widely accepted part of ancient Roman culture over a long period. Even if it seems to have been more of a ritual thing earlier it came down to deadly fights long before Rome it goes finally into decline as an empire. It was also not always done by slaves, often for money as well.

As decadence I would see what some ancient writers describe as the usual lifestyle of a very rich (but also quite small) layer of late Roman society (doing nothing, wasting their money for luxury etc.) as opposed to the (surely idealized by those writers) lifestyle of Romans from the early days (religious, hard working and not much fun besides killing enemies in wartime).

That doesn't mean I think it's something nice to kill for entertainment

[Asher]

GTA >>>> Rome

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
Well, maybe we should clarify our use of "decadent". I understand decadence being used to describe a cultural decline.

What was being discussed was an association, not a synonym. And not with cultural decline either, but of the decline of Roman civilization in general. Culture is a part of civilization, but culture's own advance/decline is not necessarily locked to advance/decline with the whole.

If the fights are decadent, they are decadent, regardless of when they did happen or even whether there is a correlation to the decline of the Roman empire.

As decadence I would see what some ancient writers describe as the usual lifestyle of a very rich (but also quite small) layer of late Roman society (doing nothing, wasting their money for luxury etc.) as opposed to the (surely idealized by those writers) lifestyle of Romans from the early days (religious, hard working and not much fun besides killing enemies in wartime).

Definitely the lifestyle is part of it. Gladiator fights were part of that lifestyle (while they occurred), and certainly a lot of time and money were "wasted" on holding the spectacles.

So even in that regard they would be considered decadent.

[BeBMan]

I disagree.

They are neither a sign of cultural decline nor of a decline of Rome as civ in general, that's actually my point.

We may call gladcom decadent today, but that's a modern interpretation (and as such always debatable), nothing else.

Gladcom was part of the Roman culture in general, so of course also part of those whose lifestyle is described as decadent. The point is that it is not described so because of gladcom. Then you're broadening this so much that anything can support your view. "Romans in general went to pubs for wine often, and rich Romans had lots of wine too, those decadent bastards". Come on.

[chequita guevara]

Rome went Christian before it declined. Far from being decadent, it became mush less so.