Not when you think about it.
To keep peace and there be no violence, then thought would almost have be nonexistant.
No one would be able to think bad thoughts about anyone or anything, you'd have to love everything in the world, so personal opinions are out the window, so really in the end it would be that everyone is technically "the same."
I'll stop you there, because that would never happen and is beside the point.
Anyway, I hate arguing. Let's just hug.
The whole videogame violence topic is a huge can o' worms and everyone has strong opinions on it so we can argue till we're blue in the face but what would it achieve? Bottom line is the fact that's it's banned makes no odds as those who want it will torrent it and those who don't want it won't care.
Films and other traditional media that have graphic depictions or descriptions of violence, rape etc. are expected to do so within a responsible context.
e.g. 'Baddies' in a crime drama do bad things, but it is made clear throughout that this behavior is unacceptable. In cases where the 'goodies' use violence, there is usually some attempt at justification for these actions, and often some sort of remorse, guilt or notion that it is not a pleasurable experience...
Some, movies get into ambiguous territory, but usually the use some sort of tactic to make the situation acceptable for the intended audience e.g. some would say that Kill Bill gets away with gratuitous violence because it uses it in a highly stylized almost cartoon manner with continual canonical references (of course many people consider these films to be in very poor taste)
Most Games OTOH that contain violence make no attempt whatsoever to provide a meaningful context for the violence they contain - it is in many cases the only point! To make things worse, they tend to strive for as realistic believable looking visuals as possible (rather than stylized). In general, either there is no attempt at providing any reference points to how society as a whole 'feels' about the activities depicted, or the attempts made are token, poorly conceived and therefor valueless (A bit like the plot in a porno movie).
If/when games do provide responsible believable context and a philosophically and morally mature 'player' experience, then they will be able to 'get away' with more explicit and horrific content before being censored (IMO of course).
1) peace is about what you do not about what you think
2) you can lead discussions with mutual respect, part with different oppinions at the end and all that without any violence or swearing (or in other words o reily is not an example of how to discuss any issue)
loving everyone as yourself is not about being on the same page on everything its about treating everyone with the same respect youd want them to have when they deal with you
I think while accepting violence as a part of human nature, there must be always an ideal against that. That's pretty much what ethics is all about in our culture and what make us human.
To forbid bad thought is just another twisted logic that appears to be "good" while it's an clear imprisonment of free will, so I think under intelligent reasoning it should not happen.
You have constructive thoughts and goodwill, however you also have cynical thoughts, to ignore one or another isn't going to make a complete human being, and to seek goodness within the complex nature of humanity, does not in anyway contradicts itself or should lead to extremity.
I think feeling indifferent about violence ans suffering....and end up seeing it as just another statistic and nature's carbon cycle. Is much more scarier then taking out violence from our way of lives.
And there are many ways to channel anger and hate, without actually acting violently.
Never heard of it, I'll check it out though, sounds interesting.
Well, yes peace is about actions, but think about it this way: thoughts lead to actions, actions lead to movements. Things grow over time, so I'm guessing that is where war come is, thoughts become actions and then you have enough people who decide what they believe is right, and then support that, which leads to ..whatever
Thats how I see it at least. This of course isn't true in every situation, but it does happen.
:soapbox:
lol, no actually I do agree with you. Bad thought is just one of those things that just happened, and there is absolutely no way of stopping it. People have free thought, so as long as people have their own opinions, people will fight for what they believe. It has been that way forever, and will continue to be like that forever, there is just no way of stopping it.
True, there are ways, the question remains... Will you choose those venting channels, or act different? Just another ordinary process everyone goes through without even noticing it.
Its like those times .. actually before I make this longer than it needs to be, as a synopsis: it's male hormones thats all it is .
this is a good topic too, I enjoy threads like these where you actually get good discussions
more wrong assumptions
thats what ethics are there for or to put it in freudian terms your super ego is there for a reason
to keep the terminology what you refer to as thoughts is the id in action and not thoughts in the usual sense of the word
so in other words if more people would go by whats good (super ego) rathern than by whats right (id) things would look a whole lot different
this of course hinges on values and the sun paris britney and pop/corporate culture in general isnt exactly a good source for morals to base ethical decisions on
It's possible to make wrong assumptions about something that isn't even true in the first place. I'm putting this in a time period obsolete from todays' society in a "utopia" so to speak, ignorant of everything around them.
So really, any assumption is a plausible one because this is all in technicalities here.
I mean, I guess you could quarantine people, but.. I'm pretty sure some humanity groups wouldn't pass on allowing that to happen.
Sure but think about it. If we all never gave a thought, we would not be violent. Sure, most of us can be reasonable and the whatnot, but you can never expect perfection from yourself. Just try your best.
PLUS IT'S ABSOLUTE BULL THAT THEY BAN THIS GAME, I WANT TO SEE PEOPLE'S VERTEBRAE RIPPED OUT BY A HAMMER!
Seriously. Would be mad fun IMO. And I hate kids who imitate games, I've seen it happen. Luckily I was raised well and I know when to draw the line.
But who said adults can't make the same mistake as kids?
And-what if someone said something like.."From playing video games, I learned how to be more tactical, and I escaped from a madman." Would they still believe it or just pull out another theory for it?
Seriously, the older age these days is bashing on technology way too much, they need to look abroad.
I don't actually think people who play games whose sole purpose is to murder people are necessarily more likely to do it, but I do wonder what it says about the people who derive pleasure from playing those games.
You know, I hate to sound like a censorship supporter, but I think that game publishers are creeping up on the line between what's acceptable and what's not. Like take GTA. It pretty much pushes the envelope. You shoot somebody they fall over dead, blood oozes out and you collect the money. Nice simple and "clean". But what if you added death throw animations and shrieks and screams from loved ones of the victims? or agonizing pleas for mercy from the wounded? Would THAT be acceptable?
What I think is funny is that it's totally ok to wipe out a city full of people,
but they left out small animals for decency related reasons.
why the hell is everyone getting so worked up about losing the right to watch gratuitious violence on screen while much more important liberties are at stake thanks to 911 inspired legislations
Edit : My post is about the banning of "Law and Order 2", not Manhunt
Using images of James Bulger in ANY type of recreational media is wrong.
Take those images out, and I can see no reason why it should be banned, it kinda bugs me when games companies/films/tv etc just try and be controversial just for the sake of it........
I think it would be moving towards being more acceptable if the player started experiencing repercussions - not getting arrested and fighting the police rather 'seeing' disturbing flashbacks of his previous victims - the gameworld avatar becoming 'disturbed' - more unpredictable and difficult to control, ultimately resulting in 'losing' the game - the avatar acting in a frenzied and emotional manner drops to his knees tearing at his hair with eyes wide and bulging - sees more flashback snippets, then proceeds to turn his gun on himself. (Maybe this remorse and self recrimination factor would be reduced for violence against opposing gang members than for random violence against innocent civilians.. ?
Unfortunately this kind of thing would have to be handled with maturity and a great deal of skill otherwise it would just be another 'feature' that folks would seek out on purpose - taking enjoyment from the virtual suffering they caused !
It would be a step in the right direction though !
.
