Stabbing for GTA4

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
You said "I disagree".

By doing so you referenced what I had said, and can't just make up stuff to disagree with. I had not said that gladiatorial matches were "a sign of cultural decline". So when you say "I disagree" and lead off with that, you are insinuating that I said something that I did not. I also had not said they were a sign of the decline of Rome. SO when you say "I disagree" and mention that, you are insinuating that I said something that I did not.

What? I started my post with "I disagree" in response to the last line of your previous post, which was "So even in that regard they would be considered decadent.", expressing that I don't find them decadent. That was and is what we're disagreeing about.

Decadence means self-indulgent. It is a very apt description of buying slaves to kill each other for your amusement. Indulging.. self.

It's one possible meaning. Another one is what I lined out earlier when speaking about clarification. You said its about an "association, not a synonym. And not with cultural decline either, but of the decline of Roman civilization in general".

Wezils original comment was:
"Strange you should mention Roman gladiators. Some argue the cultural decadence of Rome led to/mirrored the decline of the empire."

In fact it's not at all clear if by that he meant decadence in the sense you mean or in another one. And I don't think the use you prefer (and which you then elegantly declared the relevant one) is the only important when debating this.

If you disagree that killing others (by proxy) for amusement is decadence, you are hopeless.

"If you disagree with me, you're hopeless", great.

You can hem and haw about how in the "historical context" of Rome (whatever you mean by that) makes it not decadent, but doing such is just trying to pawn off responsibility for your own analysis onto a defunct civilization instead of taking responsibility for your own opinions.

I see, another version of "If you disagree with me, you're hopeless".

And hist. context means of course that slave ownership incl. using them in the arena and elsewhere was normal practice in ancient Rome over centuries. It was in general not seen as decadent just like sex with minors wasn't seen as criminal in ancient Hellas. Consequently, ancient Greeks should be called criminals because we should just ignore their own perspective on things totally? And instead we use modern views on law and ethics which weren't even developed back then?

That is quite absurd. It's also useless, since it doesn't add anything to our understanding of such historic societies, what we get instead are some strongly biased judgements that tell more about those who are making them and their cultural background. But it isn't exactly breaking news that we *today* are not into gladiatorial combat anymore, you know....

[Wezil]

Here you go Imran. A list of 15 for you.

http://www.questia.com/library/psychology/video-game-violence-and-children.jsp

I take it from your "supposedly non-agenda" remark in your last post that you are just dying to play Shoot The Messenger so have at it.

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Asher
GTA has 10x the replay value of Oblivion in single player alone. Mix in the 15 multiplayer modes and it may be 100x the replay value of Oblivion.

I say this as someone who finished Oblivion long ago and moved on.

Sorry ace.

PS: GTA did anything but "die quickly". It was still by far the most played game as of last year.

PPS: No one plays Unreal Tournament any more. It bombed.

you only disagree with me 'cuz you don't like me.

[snoopy369]

Could we possibly limit the thread to only one argument at a time? It's too hard to follow who's arguing with whom...

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
What? I started my post with "I disagree" in response to the last line of your previous post, which was "So even in that regard they would be considered decadent.", expressing that I don't find them decadent. That was and is what we're disagreeing about.

When you disagree with someone explicitly, and then give reasoning to back that disagreement, you are implying that there is disagreement on that reasoning.

Like if I said, "I disagree. Ice cream tastes good" in response to you. I would be implying that you think ice cream does not taste good.

You said "I disagree." and then followed it up with reasoning which does not apply to what we have been discussing. It was worded confusingly if you didn't mean to imply that I had made contrary statements.

It's one possible meaning.

It is the one I used. (And in at least some cases, clearly so.)

Regardless, when being asked if a term is applicable, if one meaning is applicable, then the answer is yes, in that context.

You denied that it was applicable, without qualification. You denied that it was applicable, even when I had clarified, and you had shown understanding of the definition used.

Another one is what I lined out earlier when speaking about clarification. You said its about an "association, not a synonym. And not with cultural decline either, but of the decline of Roman civilization in general".

Either definition will work that way.

But in my questions that you answered, the use of the term was different.

In fact it's not at all clear if by that he meant decadence in the sense you mean or in another one. And I don't think the use you prefer (and which you then elegantly declared the relevant one) is the only important when debating this.

It is an important one. I have consistently asked you if you felt it was decadent, in a manner which is about the self-indulgence, not the decline of the empire or culture. You have answered.

You have even denoted that you understood my use of the term when you tried to misconstrue it as "watering down". Then you again answered the question.

Do you wish to rephrase your answers in regards to whether it is decadent (in a self-indulgent manner)?

"If you disagree with me, you're hopeless", great.

No, on that point you'd still be hopeless even if I agreed with you. The reason you are hopeless is not that we disagree, it's that you've taken a position which is ludicrous.

That being, you deny that it is decadent to buy slaves, and have them kill each other for your entertainment or social standing.

And hist. context means of course that slave ownership incl. using them in the arena and elsewhere was normal practice in ancient Rome over centuries.

Normal behavior does not disqualify decadence.

It was in general not seen as decadent just like sex with minors wasn't seen as criminal in ancient Hellas. Consequently, ancient Greeks should be called criminals because we should just ignore their own perspective on things totally? And instead we use modern views on law and ethics which weren't even developed back then?

That is a fallacious analogy.

Criminal behavior is that which is against the law, and so is clearly defined by the law. It is an objective term. Law has clear jurisdiction. The laws you are hypothetically judging by did not exist, so even if by modern standards those acts were deplorable, the acts clearly weren't illegal.

If you mean "criminal" as simply "bad", then there is no problem calling "bad" acts "criminal". It is a subjective term.

Neither definition of the term "decadent" is objective in this context. There just isn't a way to say that culture has objectively declined, or objectively compute whether an action is self-indulgent to the point of qualifying for decadence or not.

But I can say slavery was bad. And if you disagree, you're hopeless. Similarly I say buying slaves and having them kill each other for your own entertainment is decadent. I think you're hopeless if you can't understand that too. Sorry.

That is quite absurd. It's also useless, since it doesn't add anything to our understanding of such historic societies, what we get instead are some strongly biased judgements that tell more about those who are making them and their cultural background. But it isn't exactly breaking news that we *today* are not into gladiatorial combat anymore, you know....

It would be quite absured to pretend the actions were illegal. They were not.

It is not absurd to judge the actions based on specified criteria. If an act was self-indulgent, it is not absurd to call it decadent. Especially an act which was so over-the-top self-indulgent as to have your personal entertainment or social standing more valued than the life and liberty of others.

How can you disagree with that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
Here you go Imran. A list of 15 for you.

http://www.questia.com/library/psychology/video-game-violence-and-children.jsp

I take it from your "supposedly non-agenda" remark in your last post that you are just dying to play Shoot The Messenger so have at it.

Some of them I have to pay to see them for free (1st, 4th. 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th) From the blurbs you can't tell on which side they actually fall on. One (2nd one in the list) says girls score lower on test (I presume emotional ones), but I can't see why.

The 3rd one is titled "Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make Believe Violence". From the 3rd:

Several months before, Jonathan had played violent games obsessively. His dad had tried to limit the activity, until I discovered that Jonathan was trying to cope with a bully at school. As he worked through that conflict, his violent play decreased. Then, after the 11th, it increased again dramatically. Jonathan told me that he was
pretty scared after the terrorist activities. In fact, the only time that he wasn't scared was when he was playing scary games—then he felt okay.

Killing games gave Jonathan control over events where he and others felt none and, perhaps even more important, they gave him control over his own feelings. With these games Jonathan no longer felt as helpless. He was not as scared of others or of his own feelings.

The 12th appears to be about why we watch violence, and perhaps there is some discussion about bad psychological effects of violent entertainment. And the introduction to the piece appears to not want to address the effects, but the causes of why violence is popular. Though I will say, the book sounds facinating (though I'm not sure I could read 200+ pages on a computer screen ).

It appears some of them may speak of negative consequences of violent video games/entertainment (perhaps #9 and #10, and some stuff on gender roles, but I'm not sure what those articles are necessarily saying about it), but it is hard to tell.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
These norms had to arrive from some place before entertainment picks it up.

It doesn't necessarily have to be society though. Fiction can provide some of it. Certainly it doesn't have to be derived from the specific society that the entertainment is served to. (And often when it is served as such, it becomes twisted by the views of the creators of the entertainment, becoming something else entirely. Various depictions of other ethnicities and cultures show this clearly, and can play it's part in shaping people's views.)

I'm sure you are aware, if you watch TV, that the entertainment industry is, for the most part, very, very, very conservative.

Not really. TV tends towards a medium. As you say, it won't take too many chances. It will serve the general public. It is still far more liberal in depictions of violence and sex than many conservatives would want.

That is not to say TV has no effect on a population. Often new trends and fashions, even new lifestyles, become popular/accepted because of depiction in mass media. Often enough, if a famous person does it, so too will a bunch of drones.

Cult of personality.

Also more subtle and intermediate steps happen all the time. It would be impossible for TV not to have any deviation from the "norm" (even if it existed), and as such can trend society one way or another by small variations that add up over time.

It is very clear that mass media influences our society. Like I said before, often it's a self-reinforcing cycle, both feeding into each other.

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.

It's a glorification of violence if it's a glorification of violence. (To whatever extent, which can vary a lot.) It's not if it's not. The original point being that depiction of violence is not necessarily glorification of violence.

Certainly there is a disconnect between the depiction of a lawman protecting people's rights against criminals, and a criminal simply murdering and raping. The level of glorification of the acts notwithstanding.

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.

I grew up on western movies and Louis L'amour books. I understand that there is glorification of violence in them, but there are also moral tales involved as well (sometimes wholesome ones, though there's a lot of misogynistic and racist crap too).

I also know the effect it and other such influences had on my own psyche.

When I was growing up, I was the prototypical American "USA! USA! #1" type kid. I wanted to grow up and be a cowboy gunslinger (really young), or fight for my country against the commies, or various other idiocies that were/are pounded into our childrens' minds. You can't say the glorification of violence doesn't affect the way children exposed to it develop. (Look at all the gangsta wannabies these days...)

I broke out of that mindset due to some rather abnormal circumstances. More normal circumstances could suffice of course, but a lot of people I know still think much the same way as when we were growing up. People are influenced by outside sources all the time. Entertainment is one of those sources, and more and more so as families and communities become more fractured, and our reliance on entertainment becomes more pronounced.

Kids learn from what they're exposed to. This is patently obvious. A kid growing up in an English speaking family will learn English rather naturally. Even if they're adopted, they won't spontaneously learn to speak their native (hereditary) dialect instead. They'll mimic various role models, sounds, actions, and discard others, based on how they are presented.

It's not outrageous to suggest we should provide proper role models for children. Once they're older, the influence doesn't affect their general mindset as much, but can still serve to reinforce, and occasionally change viewpoints.

[Wezil]

You claimed the issue was "utterly idiotic". I would suggest to you the list of serious articles/authors from what appears to be a reputable site somewhat disproves that claim.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Some of them I have to pay to see them for free (1st, 4th. 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th, 15th) From the blurbs you can't tell on which side they actually fall on. One (2nd one in the list) says girls score lower on test (I presume emotional ones), but I can't see why.

It is a paid site. If I was in the field I may have access to them. You never answered my question on why you want the actual studies. Are you an expert in the field?

It appears some of them may speak of negative consequences of violent video games/entertainment (perhaps #9 and #10, and some stuff on gender roles, but I'm not sure what those articles are necessarily saying about it), but it is hard to tell.

I think many of them speak to your BS insinuations that crazy Wezil is some sort of anti-videogame nutbar masturbating to Tipper Gore pictures in his private moments.

edit - Btw, isn't Tipper a Democrat? Wouldn't that make her one of yours?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
Neither definition of the term "decadent" is objective in this context. There just isn't a way to say that culture has objectively declined, or objectively compute whether an action is self-indulgent to the point of qualifying for decadence or not.

Then why do you insist I should agree with you at all costs? Why not bring in the perspective of the actors in ancient Rome, their mentality, their view on slavery, gladiators etc.?

But I can say slavery was bad. And if you disagree, you're hopeless. Similarly I say buying slaves and having them kill each other for your own entertainment is decadent. I think you're hopeless if you can't understand that too. Sorry.

I didn't say you cannot say it, I doubt it's something that is useful, and that I disagree with it (the decadent part) because I wouldn't judge ancient Rome by using modern criteria. But we all do such judgements here and there, some more, some less, the question is what is the gain. You use a modern view on ancient Roman conditions and get the result accordingly. That's hardly surprising. And while you IIRC agreed that's always a modern interpretation, you seem to think that it is somehow above any debate. If we cannot debate historical judgements anymore, historiography is dead.

And it's anachronistic since it isn't the view hold in ancient Rome about the matter. Judging itby modern views also doesn't change anything, past is past. For today we don't need it. I don't have to refer to a constructed "decadence" of ancient Rome to be against slavery or GC today. Not to mention the fact that it's nowhere seriously debated to re-introduce that all.

It is not absurd to judge the actions based on specified criteria. If an act was self-indulgent, it is not absurd to call it decadent. Especially an act which was so over-the-top self-indulgent as to have your personal entertainment or social standing more valued than the life and liberty of others.

But it's only over-the-top self-indulgent if you use modern standards about how we should treat people etc. In Rome for the most time slaves didn't even have a status as person, but as thing. And there was no enlightenment/whatever and all the philosophers that established ethical principles how all people should get same rights and stuff and no political forces that put them into praxis.

That is the very ground on which your "decadent" statement is founded, and it comes after Rome is long gone (some exceptions ignored). That wouldn't even be a prob as said above if you wouldn't insist that everyone has to take the same (the modern) perspective on that.

I'm off until tommorrow.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You claimed the issue was "utterly idiotic". I would suggest to you the list of serious articles/authors from what appears to be a reputable site somewhat disproves that claim.

So how about "mostly idiotic" then . After all, I have indicated social commentators that disagree with the notion and one of your links also disagrees.

You never answered my question on why you want the actual studies.

Because I want to know the basis for the argument against. I (obviously) think its a silly argument, looking for something to blame rather than taking personal responsibility. So I want to see if there is something that shows (with some proof) that I'm mistaken.

anti-videogame nutbar masturbating to Tipper Gore pictures

She's not a bad looking woman... and I don't think she was completely wrong (I don't necessarily have anything against labeling and giving parents more information on games so they can raise their children in whatever way they want).

isn't Tipper a Democrat? Wouldn't that make her one of yours?

You mean... an American?

I'm not really a Democrat, as people who may debated me on politics here for a number of years can attest to .

[Wezil]

It's not an insane topic and not everyone that thinks these things as harmful are crazy or have an agenda to push. I understand you enjoy the GTA series and power to you. Quite frankly from the articles Asher has been posting the newest edition appears to be very cool in the game aspects. I just think it's too bad it couldn't have been more positive goal oriented. I can't cast any moral judgments on you personally as I have already confessed in this thread that I also enjoy aspects of the culture that I consider to be crap. I'm no hypocrit. What can I say, I'm a product of what I'm exposed to as well. I do think every now and then it is important to take a step back and ask ourselves "WTF are we doing?". Sometimes we might not like the answer.

I have no political agenda. I don't favour labelling, banning or otherwise restricting this or any other game. Not only do I think it is futile, in some respects (with labelling in particular) I fear it may actually be counter-productive by inspiring demand for the "forbidden".

I'm not sure there is a solution. The only two suggestions I've made in this thread have been a) better parenting and b) better consumer choices. I'm not optimistic on either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fair enough... but my initial response was based on an attitude that appeared (and not just to me) to be that anyone who likes the game lacks taste (how much was teasing/joking, I'm not sure), and a seeming inability (in my view) to acknowledge that even though it doesn't appeal to you, it may indeed be a gem in the video game industry (which in my view adds to the culture, though video games haven't really reached that place in society yet, as movies have).

[Wezil]

Yeah, I am opinionated. Been told so.

But you do lack taste.

My knock isn't against video games. I'm not a big fan and prefer turn based stuff myself but I have a long history of all sorts of different types of gaming. It was definitely a comment on content, but not b/c it didn't meet personal tastes but b/c I see it as a contuation of a worrying trend. Violence has been in our culture for a very long time now but it seems to be ever more graphic and pervasive. For example, you reference the Godfather movies which were indeed graphic for their time but by today's standards they are rather tame. Also, Godfather wasn't something every kid had to see, unlike something like GTA.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
Then why do you insist I should agree with you at all costs?

You don't have to agree with me at all costs. The cost to you by disagreeing on this point is how I (or anyone following, if anyone is, which is unlikely) will view you for your stance. Perhaps also any benefit/drawback you gain/lose due to holding such views rather than various other stances you could take.

Your choice.

Why not bring in the perspective of the actors in ancient Rome, their mentality, their view on slavery, gladiators etc.?

Because I don't need some 2000 yo dead people to tell me how to determine whether an act is self-indulgent or not. When making my own judgments of an action, I really don't care what they thought about it. What they did is what they did. I can label it as I see fit.

So can you. Though you don't seem comfortable with the feedback your labeling has bought you.

I didn't say you cannot say it, I doubt it's something that is useful, and that I disagree with it (the decadent part) because I wouldn't judge ancient Rome by using modern criteria.

That's your criteria for judging, and it's "modern". Your whole stance is hypocritical because what you decry, you're doing yourself.

But we all do such judgements here and there, some more, some less, the question is what is the gain.

The gain is to learn from history. To understand why things happen. Not to obfuscate lessons to be learned by pretending that you can't look back and judge what happened with a clearer outlook afforded by history.

You use a modern view on ancient Roman conditions and get the result accordingly. That's hardly surprising. And while you IIRC agreed that's always a modern interpretation, you seem to think that it is somehow above any debate. If we cannot debate historical judgements anymore, historiography is dead.

And it's anachronistic since it isn't the view hold in ancient Rome about the matter.

It's obviously not above any debate. We are debating it.

To Godwinize this thread already, your method of judging what happened would mean we couldn't call the holocaust a crime against humanity, because the Nazi's (in the know, making the decisions) simply had a different mindset. It was not a crime against humanity to them. And that is what you say we have to judge by.

In fact we couldn't call anything other than what the people who did it saw it as. That is clearly a useless point of view to take. Would you say that the holocaust was not a crime against humanity?

Judging itby modern views also doesn't change anything, past is past.

Understanding the past helps us to form the future we prefer.

For today we don't need it. I don't have to refer to a constructed "decadence" of ancient Rome to be against slavery or GC today.

Why do you have to have a constructed "non-decadence" though? Are you so sure no one in Roman times viewed such acts as decadent? Why are you so defensive about the term "decadent" in the first place. Wouldn't they have respected the concept of self-indulgence as a status symbol?

It may be you who is anachronistic. You are putting yourself in the place of the Roman and saying "don't judge me as decadent" because of your modern views on what that implies, when the Roman may very well have said, "look at me, I'm decadent, I can afford to be self-indulgent, this is a status symbol". (Or similar, in Latin)

But it's only over-the-top self-indulgent if you use modern standards about how we should treat people etc.

Amazingly enough, I do use (my own personal) modern standards. Not 2000yo defunct ideas that have clearly proven their lack of worth.

In Rome for the most time slaves didn't even have a status as person, but as thing.

Which is a defunct idea, and rightly so. I'm not going to label actions based on defunct ideas. I have my own mind, thanks.

And there was no enlightenment/whatever and all the philosophers that established ethical principles how all people should get same rights and stuff and no political forces that put them into praxis.

They often killed the ones who didn't agree with them. Like Christians who wouldn't give up their faith (for quite a while at least).

Just because the concepts weren't accepted then doesn't mean they didn't exist. Christ's teachings for example were known, and don't quite jive with the whole "decadent" lifestyle, certainly not with having people killed for sport.

That is the very ground on which your "decadent" statement is founded, and it comes after Rome is long gone (some exceptions ignored).

Thanks for admitting you are ignoring voices from the past which don't agree with your modern view of what people back then said and thought.

That wouldn't even be a prob as said above if you wouldn't insist that everyone has to take the same (the modern) perspective on that.

You keep saying I'm forcing people to agree with me. Is my opinion of you really that strong? You can think whatever you like. I'll tell you what I think of it if it suits me. Or should I just say: (this is the internet... so...)

WAAAAH! more PEW PEW less QQ kthxbye

[Krill]

[q=Wezil]Yeah, I am opinionated. Been told so. [/q]

And we love you for it