Jedi-Hunter4 said:
I just simply do not know what to say, I would seriously go an speak to a professional about your views, to me it screams of egotism and narcissistic traits, who I would say almost certainly does not have children (I would hope not with these views) and more than likely does not have any very young relatives that they are close to. If you can sit there and tell me a 12 month old baby is not innocent by definition then I simply am gobsmacked.
Well, you could start by saying you disagree. Which is fine. While i do not have my own children, i have multiple close relatives where are of young age. That however brigns nothing but subjectivity to the discussion and as such should not be regarded significant. any baby, even just born is not innocent by definition. noone is innocent. or well everyone is until proven guilty. giving special treatment to someone based simply on his age in such scenario should not be acceptable.
The instinct to protect the elderly is a whole different issue and I would say probably is a social construct, but a good one, to protect the needy and the vulnerable, just because something is a "social construct" does not make it wrong, I think that's a very moral principle to follow. I gave you reasons why it is normal, natural and logical to value children's live's above other's that does not mean that logic mean's other's lives are worthless.
1. All social constructs that defy the ability to discuss it and relies on blind belief in "this is the way to do it" are bad. in this case it may be useful for us as a race to some extent and thats fine. Motality is a funny thing - its personal. everyon ahs his own set of morals, and its clear yours does not agree with mine. i think people should be treated equally, you suggest discrimination based on age.
There is no such thing as "normal" reason. what you probably meant to say is popular. Natural goes back to instincts, and i think we dont need to discuss the thing that natural does not always equal useful. as far as logical, you do give a way of your logic, and that is fine. i extended your logic you provided further, showing the flaws of such logic, and you automatically go to extremes of me calling lives worthless.
The thing that blows your entire argument out of the mother ****ing water like a bomb, is claiming that safeguarding children is illogical. If you look at life as a whole almost all trait's, evolution and so on is the survival of the species at the heart of it, hence why allot of insects an so on only live for sometimes only a day because for various reasons it works and ensures the survival of the species. And you want to type away there saying it's unnatural for humans to instinctively protect children. Lets sit and think about this for a moment, most instinct is designed around the survival of the species and your saying it's unnatural to want to protect children.....yes that makes sense.
I do not claim that safeguarding children is illogical. i claim that putting them on a pedestal making them somehow above us and magical to such an extent that you have laws banning portrayal of their death in movies and games is illogical. i think all humans, children or not, should be safeguarded, equally. For the nature argument, i already mentioned, that not all natural things are automatically useful. Using natures instincts, somone disagreeing with me makes me want to smack him. but i am smarter than nature, i realize that this way is not useful and chose another approach - reasoning.
Then there are the moral issue's, No.1 as far as I'm concerned Children are complete innocents, small children do not possess the capacity to knowingly do anything wrong as there is no malice in them, that alone elevates them in terms of priority and protection. No.2 they have not had the opportunity to live any kind of life or even grow up. No.3 they are among the the most vulnerable individuals within society.
Morals are personal. They are different in each person. However thinking that children do not posses the ability to do anything malicious is not a moral issue, its an issue of ignorance. And i suggest you learn more about how children think before making such assumptions, as those are simply incorrect.
As for life opportunity, we go back to elderly people again. they had the most "chance" to live thier life, therefore they should be least innocent and least protected. such is your logic. i think this logic is flawed and thing that everyone, children, grownups and elderly should have equal protection regardless of the amount of "life" they had.
I can agree with vulnerability to some extent, they often dont have physical or mental power to evade certain situations grown ups do.
"If you are trapped in a burning car you will act like any other person ever - try to save yourself ignoring everything else" in your words "WRONG." I have unfortunately been in several very life threatening situations, as well as a couple where I actively had to risk my own well being to help those who needed help. In none of those situations did I panic, or "instinctively" save myself, it is total bull that people automatically panic or just look to self preservation. An I'm just a normal person, I've had very basic first aid training and used to be in the army cadets when I was younger, no special mental conditioning or emergency training to my name, I'm an Engineer, so nothing there to prepare for emergency's either. For me I would say the idea that everyone just panics or acts totally in terms of self preservation is a myth spread by people looking for an excuse for just bottling it, because I'll be honest a few of the time's I didn't really think about how much danger I/We were in but there were a couple where I'm not to proud to admit I was terrified.
The "WRONG" was immitation of Jimquisition, sorry for that. I am very glad you did not panic and wanted to help others despite your own persona needs. you are an exception from a statistical person. self-preservation is a VERY powerful instinct, and it is one that allowed humanity to survive. You are an engineer, which very likely mean that you are more prone to logical problem solving than emotional, therefore you already have an advantage in such situations. Panic is no myth, it is sadly very real and can be witnessed in many natural disasters. people dont follow instructions. an easy example is a fire. instead of walking towards an exit and leaving in orderly fashion often people start runing screaming and tramping over eachother. to say that panic is a myth is simply false.
In all honesty, I don't even know why I'm bothering to have this discussion, I try to be understand of other's views, but I'm sorry it is one thing to not think it's a grey area in games, this view is another, totally barbaric and un-empathetic.
We each have our opinions and it is ok to disagree. Im glad you didnt resolve to name calling and such things as often happens on forums at least.
Capcha: how about that?
Oh, come on, it can read minds.
Now, excuse me, I'm off for tea and crumpets.
