Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Video games are a horrible influence. It's heartbreaking to hear the all-too-common media reports about children drowning after diving down drain pipes in search of coins.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Will playing violent games make a person violent? Opinions needed
- Thread starter powellbr5591
- Start date
What Riverwolf said. Who needs an opinion when you have research? There is a demonstrable link between witnessing violent media (of any form, and at any age) and aggressive behavior. That said, only a fool who knows next to nothing about how the sciences and causality works would ever suggest that violent media are somehow the cause of violent behavior. It's one causal variable of many, and making it into a scapegoat is just dumb (but so too, is ignoring that it is a factor entirely).
I think you can say video games are Pavlovian in that they condition us to undertake repetitive tasks to unlock an 'achievement'; game developers can and do make games addictive to hit the 'sweet' spot with gamers (much like fast food uses additives). they can create a virtual world and they make the rules so of course they can control what you do in a game, how you play and behave.
5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted | Cracked.com
Trouble is, most people have a dark and violent side- and we get the thrill of winning, crushing our enemies as obsticles in our path and the excitement of trying to achieve those goals. games are an acceptable arena for people to act like sadists and not wear the mask of sanity. I think the more intresting question is what dark fanasies we play out in the few hours in front of a screen and what they tell us about our own psyche. we are able to treat anyone in a virtual landscape how we like because they're not "real" people. the Brain doesn't make an absolute distinction between 'real' and 'fantasy' because it haven't evolved the ability to do so, it's more a question of degrees.
What is 'Real'? How Our Brain Differentiates Between Reality and Fantasy
The researchers further explained that personal relevance is not unequivocally related to what is real, since some individuals may experience personal relevance in certain fictional realms, such as in chronic computer gaming or religion. For instance, for a chronic gamer, a World of Warcraft character could yield greater activation in the amPFC and PCC than a real person of low personal relevance would. Abraham added that, although the current research doesn’t provide insight on a connection between fictional violence and real violence, future related research may help understand if a connection exists.
“A great deal more work needs to be done before we attempt to assess such complex connections,” she said. “For a start, one needs to define what exactly is meant by fictional violence - is it limited to violence experienced while playing computer games or does it extend to watching violent movies and/or even to one's own fantasies about carrying out violent acts? Of utmost importance when exploring such ideas is to aim for specificity (avoiding undue generalizations).”
5 Creepy Ways Video Games Are Trying to Get You Addicted | Cracked.com
Trouble is, most people have a dark and violent side- and we get the thrill of winning, crushing our enemies as obsticles in our path and the excitement of trying to achieve those goals. games are an acceptable arena for people to act like sadists and not wear the mask of sanity. I think the more intresting question is what dark fanasies we play out in the few hours in front of a screen and what they tell us about our own psyche. we are able to treat anyone in a virtual landscape how we like because they're not "real" people. the Brain doesn't make an absolute distinction between 'real' and 'fantasy' because it haven't evolved the ability to do so, it's more a question of degrees.
What is 'Real'? How Our Brain Differentiates Between Reality and Fantasy
The researchers further explained that personal relevance is not unequivocally related to what is real, since some individuals may experience personal relevance in certain fictional realms, such as in chronic computer gaming or religion. For instance, for a chronic gamer, a World of Warcraft character could yield greater activation in the amPFC and PCC than a real person of low personal relevance would. Abraham added that, although the current research doesn’t provide insight on a connection between fictional violence and real violence, future related research may help understand if a connection exists.
“A great deal more work needs to be done before we attempt to assess such complex connections,” she said. “For a start, one needs to define what exactly is meant by fictional violence - is it limited to violence experienced while playing computer games or does it extend to watching violent movies and/or even to one's own fantasies about carrying out violent acts? Of utmost importance when exploring such ideas is to aim for specificity (avoiding undue generalizations).”
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
Do not be misled: "Bad company corrupts good character." - 1 Corinthians 15:33 (NIV)
Even if one disagrees that forms of entertainment like movies and video games are "company", we have to consider what the time we spend on these things tells God about us. The content of our entertainment reveals what we find acceptable. The amount of time we spend reveals what we find important. We may want to argue that the violence is not acceptable in real-life applications, but can we successfully argue that we "hate what is bad"?
Jehovah examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one;
He (or, "His soul; His very being.") hates anyone who loves violence.
- Psalm 11:5
O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad.
He is guarding the lives (or "souls.") of his loyal ones;
He rescues them from the hand (or "power.") of the wicked.
- Psalm 97:10
Writing this up, I am reminded that I too could use a bit of adjustment in both the content and time spent in my choices of entertainment.
Even if one disagrees that forms of entertainment like movies and video games are "company", we have to consider what the time we spend on these things tells God about us. The content of our entertainment reveals what we find acceptable. The amount of time we spend reveals what we find important. We may want to argue that the violence is not acceptable in real-life applications, but can we successfully argue that we "hate what is bad"?
Jehovah examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one;
He (or, "His soul; His very being.") hates anyone who loves violence.
- Psalm 11:5
O you who love Jehovah, hate what is bad.
He is guarding the lives (or "souls.") of his loyal ones;
He rescues them from the hand (or "power.") of the wicked.
- Psalm 97:10
Writing this up, I am reminded that I too could use a bit of adjustment in both the content and time spent in my choices of entertainment.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Pffft, Hellsing is taame, yo.
Now Higurashi is where it's at. Also the occasional episode of MuvLuv alternative.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
We didn't have achievements/trophies when I was growing up. We just had a bunch of legitimate "hard as ****" games that gave you huge bragging rights if you could beat them. They use to take strategy, developing hand-eye coordination, learning boss patterns, and a good deal of finger dexterity. We didn't have the hand holding, but we had Castlevania, Contra, Ninja Gaiden, and Battle Toads.
So, even though two of us have said we have no issues with fake violence but real violence is unsettling, all that fake violence is what reveals our character?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I see video games as a release by which frustrations can be released through the character being played committing all kinds of wantam mayham or more concentrated and tactical.. Like a punching bag that one hits wildly or deliberate strikes.
Like aforementioned, if your predispositions are violent to begin with, it won't matter much irregardless of the venue used.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Pretty much. I'd prefer puzzle games like Tetris or RPGs like Final Fantasy, but sometimes I'm in the mood to put bullets in people's heads with a sniper rifle or go on a shotgun rampage.
And there are those curve-ball violent games, like Metal Gear Solid, a game that is a shooter but you aren't supposed to shoot and kill people unless it's necessary, like a boss fight. Of course you can kill every enemy you see, but it reduces your score.
I have, just because it's a game and the enemy is being a meany-head, but even I'll admit: every time I do, I feel a strong cognitive dissonance between some impish glee at doing something so taboo, and feeling just awful.
This is not true for all video games.
It IS, however, true for a lot of games. There's an old interview with a developer of arcade games from the 80s, who explicitly compared game development at that time to creating addictive drugs. Back then, that was the only way to turn a profit, and actually kind of mirrors the modern practice of micro transactions in so-called "free to play" games.
Many companies also rely on psychological tricks, such as Skinner-box techniques in RPG elements, to keep people playing their game long after it's stopped being fun. MMORPGs do this all the time, including World of Warcraft, but I experienced it most powerfully when I tried Peggle. I deleted it and never looked back after just an hour of playing.
That said, video games aren't actually "addictive", so much as they can encourage compulsive behavior. There is a difference. I strongly urge anyone who loves video games, interested in video games, or interested in this topic, to check out the Youtube show Extra Credit's three-parter on Video Game Addiction/Compulsion. I'll post the first episode:
For me, I consider it an opportunity to face those parts of myself, long buried and shamed as something monstrous and to be shunned. I can explore them, their roots, and what behaviors they urge in a way that won't hurt anyone for real. (I'll also not explore such behaviors in online games, because I still recognize real people behind them. I'm a good sport, darn it!)
What this can do for me is help come to grips with the fact that, yes, I do have this part of myself. This is what it's like. Is it severe enough that it requires it's own specialized therapy? What are its sources and instinctive targets? How might these parts of myself be channeled into my real life behavior in a way that's safe?
This is the Shadow, the space between what I believe myself to be and what I am. I can face it down, defeat it, and then accept it as a new Persona of myself that will help me navigate this world and its problems in a way that won't hurt others.
Why, yes, in fact, I am a huge fan of Persona 4. ^_^
I think that's an oversimplification based on cultural phobias of certain social taboos. Else, how can I be both anti-war in real life, and a fan of Manowar's music at the same time? If you don't know that band, their lyrical themes all revolve around glorifying war (specifically medieval war). An excerpt from one of their most epic songs, Sons of Odin:
Sons of Odin we four
By the hammer of Thor
Ride down from the sky
Another is born
Another shall fall
This day men will DIE!!
There's also a difference between what media we expose ourselves to and the company we keep. I'm not part of the general heavy metal community, or Manowar's community, and have no intention of being so. I'm a nerd, and the company I keep are fellow nerds. IOW, as the SpoonyOne put it, "the least threatening people imaginable aside from Walmart greeters and the Snuggles Bear." War is only glorious for people who've never had to fight one, after all.
From Damh the Bard's powerful anti-war song Morrigan:
I am the Phantom Queen,
And everything you've been,
And everything you've killed,
And all the blood you've spilled,
All the bullets and the guns,
All the Fathers and the Sons,
Lying dead in the streets,
Children crying at their feet,
Is this the world you want?
Look, the sun is fading away....
Last edited:
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Between Star Craft and Command and Conquer, I have launched so many nuclear missiles that I could have destroyed the galaxy by now. And even knowing my opponents are going to not be so happy upon hearing the forecast of nuclear bomb showers (and, admittedly, hearing a long series of beeps and "nuclear launch detected" can get annoying), and for a moment their base appears to have developed chicken pox, I feel not an ounce of remorse or guilt, not even for those countless Ghosts that have been sacrificed to create the spectacle of a field of mushroom clouds. Rather I feel gleefully happy and delighted about it, because anything that may have survived can quickly be destroyed by the surviving ghosts. Or if it's C&C, the radiation can just kill it off as I look upon the flying dead bodies and chunks of debris that are flying through the air with fascination. No cognitive dissonance for me!
Well, I'm hyper-empathic.
Plus, nuclear weapons are a minor trigger for me, since my introduction to the existence of nukes and what they do was Terminator 2 when I was 7-ish. While I still consider it one of the greatest movies every made, to this day, I have to leave the room during the dream sequence, and still sometimes have nightmares about everything just stopping in a bright flash of light, loud explosion sound, and burning sensation. One time, I didn't wake up right away from the silent blackness afterwards and felt terrified that it was real this time.
There's a (hyper-obscure) Sega CD game that I kinda want to try, called The Third World War, that involves trying to take over the world without starting World War III.
As the video points out 'compulsion' is a more accurate term than addiction. it is unquestionably true that there is alot of hype around games (and TV for that matter) probably due to the fear of new and disruptive technologies that change how we live our lives. It is right to look at gaming "addiction" not as the cause, but as the symptom of the void that society robs us of our self-esteem and that games can be an escape from the pressures and anxiety. I watched the second video and I can just feel the stab of pain as I can relate to that experience without actually ever having game addiction (well, maybe a little as a while back I could stare at a screen and blink and several hours had passed without me realising). emotionally, it's very powerful if you don't dismiss or trivialise the premise that games, like gambling or drugs, can provide a way to hide from the real world. So thanks for that.
I think thats pretty healthy honestly. I worry about what kind of things games tell us about ourselves. I played GTA IV for a bit after sharing some time on a console with a few uni freinds, and afterwards realised that gaming was a whole new way of story telling.I I wonder if sometime in the distant future people will be playing games rather than reading shakespeare as a way to understand who we are in our time and in our own language. I saw the trailer for Fallout 4 a few days ago on youtube and enjoyed it- until the bit with the mushroom cloud and the people getting engulfed because they were locked out of the bunker- that hit a nerve.
The crime, the zombie apocoplyses, the nuclear wars; what often in games can be so dark that it is only the fact that it is not real that makes it acceptable. In a way, all these things represent a desire to escape or destroy the social constraints in a fantasy world that make people addicted to games in the first place. its troubling to think that this is how we see the world. I enjoyed GTA IV but I didn't finish it as I was quite happy going round the map running people over at high speed -guilt free and with no speeding tickets of course- and honestly just loved the graphics as a piece of art to look at and explore but it left me uneasy when we play out our nightmares and think of it as entertianment. Perhaps It's not the games themselves, but the stories were using games to tell. it seems too pervasive to be just for fun.
{Edit: On rise of nations, I'd nuke my own cities if I got bored, so i'm just as guilty.
]
No problem. ^_^
I think thats pretty healthy honestly. I worry about what kind of things games tell us about ourselves. I played GTA IV for a bit after sharing some time on a console with a few uni freinds, and afterwards realised that gaming was a whole new way of story telling.I I wonder if sometime in the distant future people will be playing games rather than reading shakespeare as a way to understand who we are in our time and in our own language. I saw the trailer for Fallout 4 a few days ago on youtube and enjoyed it- until the bit with the mushroom cloud and the people getting engulfed because they were locked out of the bunker- that hit a nerve.
The crime, the zombie apocoplyses, the nuclear wars; what often in games can be so dark that it is only the fact that it is not real that makes it acceptable. In a way, all these things represent a desire to escape or destroy the social constraints in a fantasy world that make people addicted to games in the first place. its troubling to think that this is how we see the world. I enjoyed GTA IV but I didn't finish it as I was quite happy going round the map running people over at high speed -guilt free and with no speeding tickets of course- and honestly just loved the graphics as a piece of art to look at and explore but it left me uneasy when we play out our nightmares and think of it as entertianment. Perhaps It's not the games themselves, but the stories were using games to tell. it seems too pervasive to be just for fun.
{Edit: On rise of nations, I'd nuke my own cities if I got bored, so i'm just as guilty.
I recommend checking out Papers Please. It's one of those games that really forces the player to self-examine.
The player is a boarder guard (totally not at the Berlin wall, nope) for a fictional communist country that just came out of a war with a neighboring country. The government has provided housing for the player's family (a wife, a son, and the wife's parents), and is paid by how many people are processed through the day. Every day after work, the player has to pay for heating, food, and medicine if someone gets sick, but can choose to forego any of them at the risk of losing a family member but saving some money. Rent, however, can't be foregone. Every day there are guidelines on what to look for on passports, and as the game progresses, more and more papers are required to be sifted through with stricter restrictions on what can be allowed through. If the player lets through a person who's papers aren't in order, two warnings are issued, and after that, no pay for that person. Even if it's as simple as a misspelled name, the way to get money for the person who's papers aren't in order is to send them into the building guarded by men with guns, from which they won't necessarily come out again. The day's clock ticks in real-time, too, and there's only just enough time in the day to get enough money to pay for housing, etc. And there are several events that just make things all the more complicated. After all, this country did just come out of a war with the neighboring country. There's several ways the game can end, each one of them wholly unique and none of them explicitly labeled as "good" or "bad". They just are what they are, and their status as "good/bad" really depends on whether you, the player, think it is.
Personally, me comparing the way I played it with my girlfriend, Moonwater, really forced me to reexamine my values regarding money, largely as a result of a single event in the middle of the game that I won't spoil, but is one of the most punch-to-the-gut moments I've ever had playing games, but it was a punch that I severely needed.
Don't respond to this bit without your own spoiler tags. ^_^
While playing, I was applying my real life philosophy regarding money: If I can pay for it without ending up on the street, I'm going to take it. As a result, when my 10-year-old (ish?) niece needed a place to stay, I physically didn't have the money to take her in, as much as I wanted to. The newspaper headlines the next day read: "*Player's niece (I forget her name)* has disappeared", with no other mention of this character for the rest of the game.
I did manage to flee the country after the totally-not-the-Berlin-Wall-nope collapsed, but I could only take my wife and kids; her parents had to stay behind.
Moonwater, on the other hand, actively tried to keep a profit every day if she could, so the heat would be turned off if it was necessary to keep a profit up. She was able to take her niece in, and flee the country with her entire family.
While playing, I was applying my real life philosophy regarding money: If I can pay for it without ending up on the street, I'm going to take it. As a result, when my 10-year-old (ish?) niece needed a place to stay, I physically didn't have the money to take her in, as much as I wanted to. The newspaper headlines the next day read: "*Player's niece (I forget her name)* has disappeared", with no other mention of this character for the rest of the game.
I did manage to flee the country after the totally-not-the-Berlin-Wall-nope collapsed, but I could only take my wife and kids; her parents had to stay behind.
Moonwater, on the other hand, actively tried to keep a profit every day if she could, so the heat would be turned off if it was necessary to keep a profit up. She was able to take her niece in, and flee the country with her entire family.
This game, which does feature violence in a non-power-fantasy context, is one that I frankly think most people should play, even children (though perhaps older kids, like 9-ish). It's capable of being run on even low-end machines by virtue of being barely 30 MB and being primarily a single-screen pixelated point-and-click in terms of interface, and has an iOS port (apparently no Android, though
). It's also quite cheap, being 10 USD on Steam, GOG (at the time of this post, GOG has it on sale for 3 because Summer), and the Humble Bundle, and 8 for iOS. It does have some compulsive qualities about it, but it's also very short; I finished the game in about 2-3 hours and never felt the need to do its endless mode, so it shouldn't consume anyone's life or intrude on what really needs doing. It's seriously one of the few games I've played that deserves a spot on a school curriculum, and could probably have an entire college course about it.Edit:
Hm... perhaps that's a large component. The pervasiveness you speak of might be less about violence, and more about power fantasy. This modern world is honestly incredibly disempowering, and a lot of games that feature violence are also power-fantasy games.
No problem. ^_^
I recommend checking out Papers Please. It's one of those games that really forces the player to self-examine.
The player is a boarder guard (totally not at the Berlin wall, nope) for a fictional communist country that just came out of a war with a neighboring country. The government has provided housing for the player's family (a wife, a son, and the wife's parents), and is paid by how many people are processed through the day. Every day after work, the player has to pay for heating, food, and medicine if someone gets sick, but can choose to forego any of them at the risk of losing a family member but saving some money. Rent, however, can't be foregone. Every day there are guidelines on what to look for on passports, and as the game progresses, more and more papers are required to be sifted through with stricter restrictions on what can be allowed through. If the player lets through a person who's papers aren't in order, two warnings are issued, and after that, no pay for that person. Even if it's as simple as a misspelled name, the way to get money for the person who's papers aren't in order is to send them into the building guarded by men with guns, from which they won't necessarily come out again. The day's clock ticks in real-time, too, and there's only just enough time in the day to get enough money to pay for housing, etc. And there are several events that just make things all the more complicated. After all, this country did just come out of a war with the neighboring country. There's several ways the game can end, each one of them wholly unique and none of them explicitly labeled as "good" or "bad". They just are what they are, and their status as "good/bad" really depends on whether you, the player, think it is.
Personally, me comparing the way I played it with my girlfriend, Moonwater, really forced me to reexamine my values regarding money, largely as a result of a single event in the middle of the game that I won't spoil, but is one of the most punch-to-the-gut moments I've ever had playing games, but it was a punch that I severely needed.
Don't respond to this bit without your own spoiler tags. ^_^
While playing, I was applying my real life philosophy regarding money: If I can pay for it without ending up on the street, I'm going to take it. As a result, when my 10-year-old (ish?) niece needed a place to stay, I physically didn't have the money to take her in, as much as I wanted to. The newspaper headlines the next day read: "*Player's niece (I forget her name)* has disappeared", with no other mention of this character for the rest of the game.
I did manage to flee the country after the totally-not-the-Berlin-Wall-nope collapsed, but I could only take my wife and kids; her parents had to stay behind.
Moonwater, on the other hand, actively tried to keep a profit every day if she could, so the heat would be turned off if it was necessary to keep a profit up. She was able to take her niece in, and flee the country with her entire family.
This game, which does feature violence in a non-power-fantasy context, is one that I frankly think most people should play, even children (though perhaps older kids, like 9-ish). It's capable of being run on even low-end machines by virtue of being barely 30 MB and being primarily a single-screen pixelated point-and-click in terms of interface, and has an iOS port (apparently no Android, though
Edit:
Hm... perhaps that's a large component. The pervasiveness you speak of might be less about violence, and more about power fantasy. This modern world is honestly incredibly disempowering, and a lot of games that feature violence are also power-fantasy games.
I'm intrigued by the idea that someone could turn an immigration officer into a game but I can see how it would work. My mum was a teacher so I occasionally had to help out do school reports by check for spelling mistakes or grammatical errors. You'd get this report and it would have a name and no picture. The only way to manage the workload was to have copied versions of a report based on ability rather than write them out individually and so I had to check that the pronouns were of the right gender. My mum was just too tired to finish them on her own. the reports had to be checked at multiple stages to cover the possibility of other peoples incomptence or just being to tired to notice mistakes so my mum was glad for that extra a bit of help. So I grasp the dystopian element pretty easily.
If you like no-win situations, DEFCON might be worth a look. practically the only game I know of that dealt with nuclear war strategdy (the kind of motto for it is "everybody dies"). your not playing to 'win' but more to lose the least. I haven't played it, but I remember reading the reviews on amazon and people saying it was well down to make you question 'why am I playing this?' and in a rewarding way. I think if anything that is a game that actually makes players realise why violence is such a bad thing.
My favorite game of all time was Simcity Socities. I spent hours happily building up a city that was really nice to look at even if it didn't do much. some of the theme music was really cool through. unfortunately it was very high in terms of memory and graphics so I never built a full city. hours did just dissappear whilst I was playing that one and by the time I stopped playing it I did have a somewhat pavlovian sense of 'build X building with y values' which was weird (I can still remember it now honestly). I can't say that as game has effected me that much, but I know that playing stratedgy games has made me plan ahead and always try to have a back up plan. I did play Democracy 3 which is best if you play it for "what if?" scenarios rather than whether you win or lose and that was really fasinating one (I think it does get used in classrooms. it's easily the best political sim around, after you're comfortable with the navigation panel). That was one that really did get me thinking.
I agree that alot of it is power fantasy (and yeah the real world is disempowering) and games are easily a more acceptable way to let off steam than in real life as it's a kind of 'safe' environment where no matter what you do- it has no consequences (except as you said with MMORPG as there's still people at the other end of the rage).
There are many non violent games, you know. They're mostly what the gamer community refer to as "casual games" or whatever.
Puzzle games, click and find, side scrollers, sports games, those damned addictive facebook games, flappy bird (come to think of it, that game actually might cause people to become violent lol) party games, dancing games, singing games, instrumental games and all sorts of other games.
A world where adults routinely call slaughter of human beings "defense" teaches children that violence is socially acceptable, even demanded. We are taught from an early age that it is politically incorrect to call air bombings, counter-terrorism and the like by anything but obfuscative euphemisms.
Videogames may perhaps reinforce that, but to a negligible degree.
As a personal anedote, CS:GO brought me to the knowledge of Karambits, which by its turn led to a lot of youtube videos. It is interesting to see how consistently and casually people explain that personal defense involves techniques for causing irreversible maiming if not lethal damage which will lead one to prison.
There is quite the mixed message in there. I have actually read that claiming to have a knife for personal defense may put one in trouble with law enforcement officers. I don't doubt those claims, but it is interesting how used we have become to calling intent to maim or kill (presumably before someone else does the same to us) "defense".
A karambit (or for that matter, a firearm) may perhaps be advisable when one expects to be in a life-threatening situation. But it is not at all a defense tool. It is not armor. It is not a shield. It could technically be used for parrying, but really, that is a secondary benefit at best.
People do not learn Silat or join the Armed Forces hoping to exert "defense". That is just a convenient misnomer for attempts at self-delusion, implicit dehumanizing of others and repurposing of aggressive intent.
Videogames do reflect that mentality, but they can hardly be blamed with creating it. Incidentally, we don't see much in the way of evidence of people developing a craving for saving princesses or seeking phantoms in corridors, either.
Videogames may perhaps reinforce that, but to a negligible degree.
As a personal anedote, CS:GO brought me to the knowledge of Karambits, which by its turn led to a lot of youtube videos. It is interesting to see how consistently and casually people explain that personal defense involves techniques for causing irreversible maiming if not lethal damage which will lead one to prison.
There is quite the mixed message in there. I have actually read that claiming to have a knife for personal defense may put one in trouble with law enforcement officers. I don't doubt those claims, but it is interesting how used we have become to calling intent to maim or kill (presumably before someone else does the same to us) "defense".
A karambit (or for that matter, a firearm) may perhaps be advisable when one expects to be in a life-threatening situation. But it is not at all a defense tool. It is not armor. It is not a shield. It could technically be used for parrying, but really, that is a secondary benefit at best.
People do not learn Silat or join the Armed Forces hoping to exert "defense". That is just a convenient misnomer for attempts at self-delusion, implicit dehumanizing of others and repurposing of aggressive intent.
Videogames do reflect that mentality, but they can hardly be blamed with creating it. Incidentally, we don't see much in the way of evidence of people developing a craving for saving princesses or seeking phantoms in corridors, either.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Tetris is a very serious thing. Nothing casual about it.
And yet we are up to two posters who think nothing of fake violence but do not like real violence, and one poster who experiences some cognitive dissonance over it. Of course it's not scientific, but it does add weight to the idea that most people are very capable of distinguishing between real violence and fantasy violence.
It depends on where you are (here in America, anyways. I can't speak for other parts of the world). Ballistic knives are banned in the US (they aren't very effective anyways), at least here switch blades are illegal to possess except for a few such as fire fighters, but other knives are ok to have.
Except, video games are fake, and in general, people of a sound and healthy mind can distinguish the difference between reality and fantasy.
@Shadow Wolf :
For the most part I agree, except that I think you misunderstood what I said about the mixed message.
I am not focusing on which weapons are legal and which are not, but rather on the oddly underremarked contradiction of having a culture that banalizes lethal violence and dehumanizing of opponents to the point of routinely calling brutal, aggressive intervention "defense" with no comment, while at the same time finding it worrisome that videogames are not shaped by a much more idealized mindset.
For the most part I agree, except that I think you misunderstood what I said about the mixed message.
I am not focusing on which weapons are legal and which are not, but rather on the oddly underremarked contradiction of having a culture that banalizes lethal violence and dehumanizing of opponents to the point of routinely calling brutal, aggressive intervention "defense" with no comment, while at the same time finding it worrisome that videogames are not shaped by a much more idealized mindset.