Religion Catch All

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2234

Repressing the rights of certain demographics, even minority demographics has the potential to backfire tremendously. The “woke”/political correctness shtick is a byproduct regarding decades of systemic oppression/blanket discrimination against certain demographics. Furthermore, talking about moral fibre or lack thereof… is it acceptable to stifle the basic rights of an individual simply because they’re gay? I don’t think so, I have no reason to believe a homosexual ought to be any less free than one of us. What’s more, I don’t believe an apt justification exists for doing so.

As to theocratic rule, I tend to base my hypothesis using modernistic examples. Human rights, maternal mortality rates, economic stability tends to be lacking within countries still running under religous rule. I’d also argue given how frequently the bible/Torah inherently contradicts itself it’d be difficult to come up with adequate groundwork as to what constitutes acceptable or moral action.

These video games are a new societal construct. Interactive war simulations, interactive antisocial/deviant behaviour present within these videographic games sparked fear in that

  • perhaps these products have a direct correlation with rates of youth aggression
  • perhaps the average citizen could be influenced to actually commit certain crimes (i.e you can steal a car in GTA, what about real life?)

Generally speaking, aside from the odd paper data doesn’t back the notion of a significant negative societal impact being present.

“No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. Also, no effects were observed between baseline and posttest directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. The present results thus provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games in adults and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective on the effects of violent video gaming.”

“Results revealed that it was not the consumption of violent video games but rather an uncontrolled pattern of video game use that was associated with increasing aggressive tendencies.”

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.171474

“The results provide confirmatory evidence that violent video game engagement, on balance, is not associated with observable variability in adolescents’ aggressive behaviour.”

“The present results provide strong evidence against the frequently proclaimed negative effects of playing violent video games and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective of the effects of violent video gaming in real life.”

Many conservatives also said the sky would fall when cannabis was legalised in certain countries, the same can be said for prostitution. I’m not stating I’m right about anything, I’m giving my opinion and providing literature to back it up.

However in today’s day and era the chances of the American government turning tyrannical is minute. Even if tyranny became plausible, the American populace wouldn’t hold ground against the military or the government cutting off food, water, electricity etc. A gun will only get you so far, it’s a flawed argument (IMO) to begin with.

Yes, I’ve mentioned this. But the effect appears to be very small

It’s difficult to adequately ascertain differential impacts stemming from casual relations given how diverse neurological makeup can be. There are studies that find a negative effect, but collectively pooling the body of data more studies appear to indicate the practice of casual relations is relatively harmless. As this is a relatively new societal construct we don’t have a ton of data looking at psychosocial ramifications associated with premarital relations. But with what we do have, it doesn’t appear as if the sky is falling.

I state the argument revolving around video games is/was based in hysteria because at the time (around the first mortal kombat) there was no evidence to support the narrative “video games are correlated with criminality”.

2235

Good post.

Most level-headed people are not resistant to good change. What they see as degenerate will l be resisted. Well, that is unless they are a good little “conservative” and get beaten down and embarrassed enough by leftists and yield to a new status quo. After that, things will get even more progressive and the conservative will have to shift to a new status quo.

A “conservative” clings to principles and abstractions while his opponents get their way by any means necessary. Seriously, modern conservatives are utterly lame.

I don’t know if anyone who wants an intact family who wants future confident and competent children who wants vice and degeneracy around them.

Even many upper class people say they’re “progressive” and want “freedom of choice” but they certainly don’t live their lives in such a “free” manner, nor do many of Them live near or truly embrace the people they say they care so deeply for. They live in extremely expensive, low-crime areas. Their kids are not “exposed” or “experienced”, nor are they so “free”, as they don’t rub elbows with the lower classes, engage in one organized activity after another, and attend academic and athletic camps in the summer, drive cars most adults can’t afford, and attend private schools that cost a small fortune.

They’re progressive in their words only.

I want at least one good reason I or my children should be exposed to engage in vices, entertainment that taps into the lowest desires (that even I, like any human being, am susceptible to), or indulge in anything that will give me bad consequences.

So of course I wouldn’t mind living in a society similar to the 1950’s but with added new technology and inventions and whatever other advancements.

People can leave me alone with obnoxious zingers about segregation and women being “barefoot and pregnant” because that’s clearly not what I’m referring to.

3 Likes
2236

Neither would I, aside from certain discriminatory elements (which you’ve stated you wouldn’t be for). From what I recall the criminal justice system wasn’t quite as punitive as it is now back then.

Economic stability is of paramount importance to me. Back in the 1950s a stable job wasn’t a particularly difficult commodity to attain.

1 Like
2237

There is no good reason aside from it’s a part of life/the fabric of our society as we know it. You can’t shelter a child from everything unless you decide to retreat into an underground bunker, refusing to let your child out.

Even in the 1950s vice was still apparent. Smoking, drinking, gambling, pornography etc were all still present in the 1950s. I suppose the question begs as to the extent exposure will damage said child/adolescent/young adult. As I’ve specified through literature, it would appear as if (provided the child is of adequate age) casual relations, video games etc have minimal detrimental long term impacts.

2238

Mate,

I said I didn’t want to discuss video games.

Fine that you felt like going through that effort but forgive me for not engaging.

You are responding to our posts as if I said.

“Video games bad. Video games create super violent people”

I did not say anything like that.

I only said they for sure have some sort of effect on people particularly children. And again I could find a bunch of articles that support that but I am not gonna get into that sort of exchange on here.

Exactly why I don’t want to get into this sort of exchange.

First of you have to very specifically state what claim we are going to investigate. And then carefully choose the articles.

The ones you cited are all over the place.

I don’t think you understand this.

How do you come to that conclusion?

If you say so.

At least here you admit it is your opinion.

1 Like
2239

As a lifelong gamer, “2 months” + 2 months follow up is hardly long term. No conservatives I’m aware of have ever argued - Reefer Madness style - that 2 months of violent games will ruin kids.

Gamers start young, and play for DECADES. General screen time starts ever younger now. So, let’s say a kid starts playing games at 6-7 years old. By the time they’re in secondary school they’ve already had close to a decade of exposure (yes this is parents responsibility).

After a decade of exposure, and given the generally slow pace of development, a 2 month study is peanuts. Even if the sample pool had never touched a video game before (not likely) there would likely be no large effect given pace of development and what we know about the effects of repeated messaging.

I’m not posting to say the pearl clutching crowd is correct - I’m posting to say research can’t likely address the issue in its present form and that most of these studies have quite major flaws.

EDIT–don’t spend a lot of time on your response, because I don’t feel like getting in the weeds on this. I’m just letting you know the flaws in these studies are real…

Yes. The problem is that research is poorly positioned to tackle this given the timelines involved.

There are some important questions that research can’t answer.

2240

It was not a certainty that porn would wind up
In the hands of kids then. Now it is.

Being a glorious loser or whore wasn’t praised either.

1 Like
2241

I think anyone in their right mind would state many video games aren’t intended for this demographic. Violent video games are typically restricted to 15+ minimum (and/or at least they should be).

Hell I didn’t even start playing video games regularly until I was around fourteen, and I more or less stopped playing them at age 18 because I think they’re a waste of time.

Not really, they cover a blanket topic “do video games lead to aggressive and/or criminal behaviour”. If we were to cater the investigation to one tiny specific variable you’d find very little data to look at. Current era video games are rather new, it’s only as of the past two decades or so wherein hyper realistic, grisly carnage could be interactive on screen and in an arms reach from adolescents.

2242

Disagree, XXX material didn’t find its way into the hands of children. Playboy most certainly did

That being said, there’s a BIG difference between playboy and current era pornography. I’ll link data today regarding rammifications associated with pornography as further discourse regarding the potential effects vice has on our society.

It isn’t praised today. No one is giving the resident pothead a trophy for taking bong rips. I don’t believe promiscuity is celebrated either, it’s about relative indifference

2243

That’s not the point. The point is that kids that age have access to them many ways–through their parents’ gaming habits and maybe not keeping those games locked up, through friends with more permissive parents (or absent ones), through any online browser.

“Targeting” is not the question. The reality of access and play is. That would be like me (or the cigarette companies who tried this) saying “we don’t target smoking to kids”.

I and most of my friends started around 6-8. So at the very least there is the presence of a large demographic for which this is true.

And more true now given that smartphones start screen time for kids as young as 2 or less.

1 Like
2244

Well I think this is insane, I didn’t receive my first phone until I was around twelve, and it was a flip phone. First smart phone I must’ve been around… fourteen or so

2245

Speaking of porn these days.

There is a disgusting abundance adult content simulating incestuous relationships. Literally with lines like “we can’t do this your my sister/brother/stepfather”.

WTF is that about.

And obviously nearly every kid/boy has a laptop and internet connection.

I wonder what sort of effect long term exposure to that sort of stuff will have?

2 Likes
2246

I think it’s insane too, but it is reality…and that’s my point.

2247

Good god dude, I’ve noticed this too

I don’t understand it, this doesn’t cater towards societal norms or standard fetishes.

There must clearly be a demand if it’s being produced in such high quantities.

2248

Hate to tell you this, but fetishes by definition aren’t standard lol.

I am not going to discuss this particular topic though

2 Likes
2249

Did you ever catch an episode of reality TV?

Glorified (in many cases rich) losers: many actors and actresses, “influencers”, rappers, rock stars, pornographers, and assorted celebrities.

2 Likes
2250

Agreed, a fetish is a fixation on a specific act. However a fetish for feet would be more common/standard as opposed to a fetish for cannabalism.

This was the rhetoric I was referring to

2251

Yeah well. You were born in 2001 and never played Doom (1993 version).

Yes really. Because we never even established a point/claim which you were going to refute in the first place.

But like I said for the third or fourth time now I would rather not get into that sort of exchange here.

Please don’t.

2252

Actually no… literally never because reality TV is trash. I’d rather not waste valuable neurons on memorising the events present within keeping up with the kardashians.

Not hyper-realistic akin to today’s character models which appear lifelike. Also I’ll have you know I have played doom (1993) for like a solid four minutes.

2253

Yes, I heard about that.

Our criminal justice system literally coddles criminals in many cases. Thousands or millions of criminals walking around today would have been executed back in the bad old days, or not even existed in the first place. Part of Western advancement was execution of violent psychopaths and pushing around people who lived messy lives.

It’s relatively easy to be a well-behaved person, so although I’m an empathetic and sensitive person, my empathy is lost on people who can’t do this.

For many people and situations, abstinence is quite easy. After all, it’s doing nothing. So it’s easy to abstain from adultery, cheating at something, staying away from harmful drugs, and so on. So I don’t have the tenderest feeling for people who do these, unless they’re truly suffering and in extreme circumstances (eg, so depressed and disenfranchised they turn to drugs and kill themselves, steal food or clothing because they’re starving and homeless, etc.).

So I so don’t care about reasoning or justifications for much of what we speak of here. And as said, if all the people I know who live rational lives, none have any of the debauchery We speak of here. I lived in one of the most socioeconomically diverse place on earth for nearly all my life and met all kinds of people. Although I don’t know every single habit they had, my guess is the ones who live rationally aren’t engaged in all that.

And I don’t mean to insult here at all, but shouldn’t I be weary of the recommendations and writings of a nihilist? I think several times you said mankind is doomed. Is that something that a man with children wants to hear? Or is it easy to here recommendations for making life even harder for the next generation, even l his own kids?

1 Like