Violence sucks.
- Thread starter crunchieman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
retaliation!!!!and make it really irionic too break HIS jaw with a crow bar...and then his knee caps...and then his shins...and then his noes...and then um...well you can see where im going with this
oh and im glad i kept reading before i googled this Jon Venables guy i probly wouldent have forgoten the images for a while
oh and im glad i kept reading before i googled this Jon Venables guy i probly wouldent have forgoten the images for a while
Logic can't make something out of nothing. It can only work out the implications of some original premise. A implies B implies C. The chain has got to start somewhere, and the only place it can start is at a person's opinion. Unless you believe in some fixed code of the universe. In which case, that is also just a person's opinion. You are begging the question.Caliostro said:
...What? It's called experience, and knowledge... Which has nothing to do with values... Are we staying on the same train of thought here or have you fallen of the wagon at some point?oktalist said:
Next thing you know you'll be telling me a mathematical equation is based on values. Concepts like good and evil are not objective. They're subjective social constructs. They should, in theory, have nothing to do with legislation, which should be based on functionality and logic.
For the love of all that is good, please tell me you or your friend called the police. Hell, tell me anyone called the police. A crime that violent should not go unpunished. That kid has some serious, and I mean serious, issues.
Who took my Wagon Wheels?!Caliostro said:
That's what I've been trying to tell you!
I'm saying I don't think there's a difference between your cold logic and someone else's heated judgementalism. They're both just subjective viewpoints. Your claim that because it's logical it must be objective has no more legitimacy than a gypsy lady claiming that her point of view must be objective because it's based on the patterns made by tea leaves. Logic and tea leaves are both objective, but both must also be interpreted subjectively in order to find any meaning in them.
I generally think the justice system should be more compassionate and pragmatic. Legislation is, in theory, determined by democracy, a.k.a. the biggest group of idiots who can gang up for long enough to all vote for the same policies. How you or I believe it should be determined is just another value judgement.
I don't understand your contradiction, when you say that there is something called "good and evil," which is subjective, but that there also exists some other way of determining whether an act is good or bad, which is somehow objective because it's logical. The use of logic must always be based on some subjective premise.
That... Sucks.crunchieman said:Ever played GTA IV and you kill a man with a baseball bat? Well I have and when it happens that your friend is attacked in reality in this fashion it's a strange feeling.
Last night a 15 year old friend of mine got attacked by a 17 year old with a crowbar, all because he sent x's in a text to his girlfriend. He got hit in the face 3 times with the crowbar, now he has ta get wires put into his jaw and cant talk for 6 weeks and might have slurred speech for the rest of his life.
Another thing is most people have just shook this off as a "bad day".
EDIT: COULD EVERYONE PLEASE STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AND SAYING THAT I AM TRYING TO BLAME VIDEO GAMES AS I AM NOT IT'S JUST I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN MY SHOCK. I KNOW THAT I DID NOT EXPLAIN THE WHOLE GTA THING BUT NOW I HAVE
At least he's alive, eh?
So instead of abduction, torture and murder, you mean "roughhousing-killed-by-accident" after pouring paint in his eyes beating him with boards and bricks and leaving him to be sliced apart on the train tracks? 10 year old kids absolutely comprehend the extent of how to hurt people... Ever notice how vicious uppity bastards kids get around that age around middleschool?Daystar Clarion said:
When someone violates, seriously harms or kills another person as in that disgusting example, or like the OP's friend, they forfeit their humanity and right to decent treatment, in my mind.
There are always exceptions and I'm quite willing to take people's background into account for non-violent criminal offenses, but I'm no bleeding-heart hug-a-thug advocate.
OT: Best of luck for your friend's recovery and best of luck bringing his attacker to the full extent of "justice".
Yes, violence does suck. I feel bad for your friend and wish there were less idiots going around ruining other people's lives. I don't see how this relates to the closed space of games and gaming though.
No, that was my original point all along... I get the feeling you went into some sort of meta-level of debate and ended up tripping over your feet here...oktalist said:
I'm sorry but that's demonstrably wrong. I'm not sure whether we're going by different concepts of logic or if you're just totally lost here, but logic isn't subjective... 1+1 doesn't equal "whatever you believe". It's 2. It's always 2. People can make a mistake and say it's 3, or 20 million, but it's still 2.oktalist said:
In this case, homicide should be illegal for the simple fact that, if it wasn't, we'd all just kill each other. This isn't an opinion, this is what happens. Assault isn't illegal because someone believed it was a bad thing, it's illegal because otherwise people would wreck havoc.
This is the reason why real child pornography should be illegal, but drawn one shouldn't. Because the problem isn't that some guy is getting his kicks of seeing it, or that it's "amoral", but that for real child pornography to exist, someone had to molest a child. This isn't a problem just because it is, this is a problem because it will hurt and create developmental problems in the child. This isn't subjective. This isn't "open to interpretation". This is objective, and empirically demonstrable.
And here seems to lie the crux of your confusion. I never said there was an objective way to determine good and evil. I said there is an objective way to determine what should be legal and illegal... That isn't to say it's good or bad.oktalist said:
I know that. I said that.Caliostro said:
I also said logic is only a set of operations that you can use to derive some implication from an initial assumption. It is that initial assumption that must be subjective.
Arithmetic is a poor analogy. A better one would be algebra. The value of x+x depends upon the value of x. The fact that x+x=2x is objective fact. The fact that if x=1 then x+x=2 is objective fact. But if the initial assumption x=1 comes from a subjective source, then the conclusion x+x=2 must also be subjective, even though it has been derived by an objective process.
Of course I agree with the conclusion, but on a thoretical level (you do know that's the level we're on, right?) the proposition "it is undesirable to hurt a child" is still subjective.
And now you will argue that it's not subjective because it causes pain and will adversely affect their life chances.
And I will argue that the proposition "it is undesirable to cause pain or adversely affect a person's life chances" is also subjective.
And then you will argue that that's not subjective because pain hurts, and causes trauma, and leads to unhappiness.
And then I will argue... Can you see where this is going?
We're using the admittedly objective process of logic to go from one subjective proposition to another, then another, then another. At some point you have to stop and say, we decide that causing pain is wrong because it just is.
Okay, but then objectivity is irrelevant. Flipping a coin to decide if a person is guilty of a crime is just as objective as your system, but that doesn't make it sensible.
Your system sounds fairly sensible, but that's not just due to its objectivity.
Objectivity might be neccessary, but it is not sufficient.
I don't mean to bring this thread all the way back to life but I feel I owe you a better explanation than yesterdays. I had to nip out real fast yesterday so I rushed my message.Caliostro said:
My reasoning for violence not being the answer here is not because of a moral standpoint. I just believe it will worsen the situation. The fellow is already proven to be a bit of a psychopath, doing that over on message with an X in it. If the man who was attacked tries to get revenge with a baseball bat or something... When the psycho recovers... He might do something extreme, maybe even resort to murder... I wouldn't put it past the fellow given what he did over just and X mark in a text.
This would mean he'd either have to do enough damage to make sure he never walks again, put him in a coma or kill him... Which would probably get the attention of the authorities and then well... He's a criminal. They probably be able to piece this one together quick because I imagine the psychos girl friend would tell the police the situation.
My point is... That route is a no go because it's presents more risk than reward.
As for the police... I know the real world isn't like CSI and I don't think I ever make mention to such a thing. However the police will still do something, he'll still get arrested and he'll still go to court and probably do a good couple years for GBH and assault with a deadly weapon.
This isn't too hard to piece together for real life police. After all, contrary to popular belief, the police are human beings and so do have a tad of common sense. He'll phone the police, he'll tell them what happened, write a statement and then they'll arrest the fellow, issue him a court order (or lock him up until the day he's due court)and then they'll settle it in court. Wouldn't be too hard to prove the fellow is guilty.
I've seen this happen plenty of times before.
Either way I apologise for yesterdays very brief and rushed explanation and I hope this will suffice.
Well that sucks. What a dick.
My brother got mugged in Newcastle once, got his face punched in by a guy wearing a shitload of rings and needed stitches in his face. You never really expect that kind of stuff to happen to people you know.
depenbds on the perspective .. i was raised in east london and i've both recieved and dished out violence in small and huge amounts since most teens including myself were involved in gangs .. i never lost my appreciation for games or causing violence in games though because i'm not a hypocritecrunchieman said:
it's easy to enjoy something like violence then ***** when it happens to YOU ........ the way i see it .. live by the sword die by the sword .. sometimes it'll suck to be you and sometimes it won't
nowadays i wouldn't approve of violence towards someone else but it happens and you can't let a single experience warp your perspective so much .... any money your friend's taking it alot better than you are
also it is just a bad day .. IN COMPARISON to most of the shit that happens to people. just don't take it to heart if people have too much going on in their own lives to care (did not mean that in a bad way)
