Stabbing for GTA4

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson
You are confusing issues Colon. Medieval tourneys had nothing to do with the rise of Western civilization. They certainly were a product of (if not a factor in) the suppression of the civilization.

Very debatable IMO.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
Very debatable IMO.

You don't think that the medieval feudal system restricted progress?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure the medieval tourneys kept the feudal system alive .

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Aeson


You don't think that the medieval feudal system restricted progress?

That's IMO too general. You still have progress in the middle ages, and under feudal rule, so I'd say it's not that clear.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The middle ages do indeed get a very bad rap. Especially in the time period known as the high middle ages, there was much progress. You have folks like Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Dante, Gothic architecture, the invention of eyeglasses and windmills, etc.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Violence has always been glorified in our (modern) culture. The wild west movies which spread the idea of the American cowboy weren't exactly all peaceful.

Are you trying to say that the entertainment industry has no effect on society?

These days entertainment is a much more consistent factor in day to day life, so too will the effects of their influences will be more pronounced.

Also, the nature of the violence is important. Depiction of violence is not necessarily glorification of violence. A lawman protecting the innocent is a positive role-model. A cold blooded killer gunning down unarmed natives for sport is not. (Neither is a gangster killing prostitutes, police, and random passers-by.) Surely you can see the difference?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by BeBro
That's IMO too general. You still have progress in the middle ages, and under feudal rule, so I'd say it's not that clear.

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

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not sure the medieval tourneys kept the feudal system alive .

I did not say so. I said they were a product of the feudal system. Do you need me to explain what a product of a system is?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
I did not say so. I said they were a product of the feudal system. Do you need me to explain what a product of a system is?

Do I need to remind you that you also stated "if not a factor in"

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Aeson
Are you trying to say that the entertainment industry has no effect on society?

These days entertainment is a much more consistent factor in day to day life, so too will the effects of their influences will be more pronounced.

Also, the nature of the violence is important. Depiction of violence is not necessarily glorification of violence. A lawman protecting the innocent is a positive role-model. A cold blooded killer gunning down unarmed natives for sport is not. (Neither is a gangster killing prostitutes, police, and random passers-by.) Surely you can see the difference?

It has far less effect than has been stated. The entertainment industry, being, of course, a capitalist enterprise plays to the wants and desires of its audience. It isn't so much that the entertainment industry has an effect on society, but rather than society has more of an effect on the entertainment industry.

If people did not want to watch violence, it would not sell and the "entertainment industry" would not show it because they wouldn't want to lose money.

As for the claim that a lawman protecting the innocent is a positive role-model, the fact that he uses violence to achieve it is indeed the glorification of violence. It shows that in order to get things done, you have to use violence. As opposed to say a person who is obviously NOT supposed to be a positive role-model using violence. When the people in the Godfather use violence, they are not good men. When John Wayne uses violence, he is someone to be looked up to and his use of violence is what saves everyone.

Furthermore, some of the greatest spaghetti westerns from the 1960s (Fistful of Dollars; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) show an anti-hero. And the message becomes the ends justify the means.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do I need to remind you that you also stated "if not a factor in"

If you were capable of doing so, you'd realize that statement does not support your implication that I was claiming tourneys kept feudalism alive.

"If not" denotes a possibility. I was simply leaving the possibility open that it may have been a factor in Feudalism's grip. Which in and of itself is not an unlikely thing, as entertaining the masses can often contribute to increasing control a system has over said masses.

Furthermore "a factor" is obviously not "the factor" or even "a major factor". So even if you ignore the "if", in no case was I saying that tourneys kept feudalism alive.

Your implication fails utterly Imran. Give it up.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It has far less effect than has been stated.

By whom?

The entertainment industry, being, of course, a capitalist enterprise plays to the wants and desires of its audience. It isn't so much that the entertainment industry has an effect on society, but rather than society has more of an effect on the entertainment industry.

Society definitely affects the entertainment industry. It is a cycle though (generally self-reinforcing, though in some cases in opposition), both affect the other. Not the dichotomy you are trying to force it towards.

If people did not want to watch violence, it would not sell and the "entertainment industry" would not show it because they wouldn't want to lose money.

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".

As for the claim that a lawman protecting the innocent is a positive role-model, the fact that he uses violence to achieve it is indeed the glorification of violence.

No. It could be depicted as such, and later on tended towards that more and more, but acting in self defense or the defense of others is not a glorification of violence in and of itself.

It is a glorification of the right people have to live their lives free from the tyranny of violence.

It shows that in order to get things done, you have to use violence.

Yes. 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.

As opposed to say a person who is obviously NOT supposed to be a positive role-model using violence. When the people in the Godfather use violence, they are not good men. When John Wayne uses violence, he is someone to be looked up to and his use of violence is what saves everyone.

John Wayne did have some "bad guy" roles. The variation on the effects of violence, and the motivations behind them, are important. It's not as simple as saying voilence is glorified if the "good guy" does it, and demonized if the "bad guy" does it.

Furthermore, some of the greatest spaghetti westerns from the 1960s (Fistful of Dollars; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) show an anti-hero. And the message becomes the ends justify the means.

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you were capable of doing so, you'd realize that statement does not support your implication that I was claiming tourneys kept feudalism alive.

May I remind you that I had a smilie at the end of the statement? You know, the whole idea that medieval tournaments may have been a contributing factor towards the suppression of culture being fairly amusing and all.

I was simply leaving the possibility open that it may have been a factor in Feudalism's grip.

Which is quite an amusing assertion. Kind of like saying that professional sports may be a factor in keeping capitalism going (entertaining the masses).

In the end, it's a silly assertion, however "leaving the possibility open" it may be, in the first place.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Aeson
You are confusing issues Colon. Medieval tourneys had nothing to do with the rise of Western civilization. They certainly were a product of (if not a factor in) the suppression of the civilization. It was trade and new (and rediscovering old) ideas that brought Western civilization out of that mess.

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.

Moreover, you are terribly confused yourself if you claim that tourneys were a product of suppression of civilization. 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.
Tourneys in fact arose with the rennaissance that marked the high middle ages. They arose during a time when international trade links were re-established and were very prevalent during the Hanseatic League, the glory days of Venice and the travels of Marco Polo. It's the era of scholasticism (which involves the study of classic philosophers) and Gothic architecture.
I also don't think you quite understand the nature of tourneys. Many were events that attracted participants from all over Europe and that quite contradicts the internal isolation that typified the "dark ages".

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.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
May I remind you that I had a smilie at the end of the statement? You know, the whole idea that medieval tournaments may have been a contributing factor towards the suppression of culture being fairly amusing and all.

If you want to make jokes, perhaps they should be funny. Simply putting a smiley on your statement doesn't make it any more valid. If you want to admit it was an incorrect depiction of what I had stated, you probably shouldn't have responded argumentarily when I pointed that out either. (In which case your post was devoid of smileys.)

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.)

Which is quite an amusing assertion. Kind of like saying that professional sports may be a factor in keeping capitalism going (entertaining the masses).

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?

In the end, it's a silly assertion, however "leaving the possibility open" it may be, in the first place.

Your continual denial that things may be factors is the only silly thing going on here.