Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gingangguly

shooters

Recommended Posts

Do you have evindnce? I see no citings. You believing in something in no way proves anything. In fact, neither one of us has cited any factual material. However, I would be willing to bet that anyone here would side with my side of this arguement in a heartbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no evidence omg listen carefully i will say this all only once as it is a lot to say.

3000bc Brittian falls to rome, Roman emperors such as Augustus ceaser takes entertainment in capital punnnishment, around 5000 years later such violence is used for entertainment however jousting which is still a very violent sport to be played in modern time is very poppular for the rich to entertain themselves with, the middle ages end in 1600 when already jousting is losing popularity, 1900, world war one starts over greed not used as a form of entertainment i know but still is used for gaining accessability to entertainment, 1930's world war 2 starts for similar reasons, In moder day their has been no world war for over 70 years, their has been nothing nearly as violent as jousting used for entertainment in conclusion i find that violence is most defiantly becoming a most unpopoular thing for example the war in iraq started nothing but outrage from protesters world wide, at the rate life is going violence will become so unpopular, i believe, that one day governments will be under so much pressure by voters and protesters they will not go to war, their will be harsher restrictions on violence used as entertainment, including things like wresstling and video games and thus is my educated hypotheses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your little explaination is flawed from the beginning. If you add 5000 years onto your 3000b.c., that would bring us to within ~5 years of present day. Other than a few shows in Las Vegas, I see no rich people hosting jousting competitions.

You're taking little excerpts from history that you think favor your theory when they actually don't. One, much more went on than you mentioned, or could even probably imagine for that matter. Two, 70 years isn't a long time for a war not to have occured. There were spans of hundereds, sometimes thousands of years in certain parts of the world when things stayed relatively peaceful. Even during those peaceful times, violence still surrounded them. It's the same way today. You think since because there isn't a war that violence doesn't surround us? There are so many violence related deaths in the world each day, you would be surprised. Saying that violence is declining because of 70 years without a war is absurd. 70 years isn't a long time. You need to step back and put things in perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer it if you would go through the history books and list all the wars that have ravaged the lands in those 5000 years. I think there should be over 1000 entries in your list. If anything, the world has had to experience more larger wars in the past 5000 years, than in the 5 billion years before that. Modern man is if I remember correcty about 1000 years old, so half of that time was spent in a world filled with war.

In moder day their has been no world war for over 70 years

What difference is there between a 'world' war and a 'normal' war? There have been quite a few wars in the world for the past 100 years. I don't feel a need to list them, because it can easily be looked up in a history book.

Those protesters against the Iraq war were there, because of the pointlessness of that particular war.

Another reason could've been Bush, but I don't know that for sure. :roll:

Violence isn't something that should exist in a children's world, because that world needs to be care-free, harmless, so a child can grow up, and learn what it is. Then it may decide whether to start causing it him/herself or not.

Adults... they own the world, they may do with it as they wish. Can't blame them for trying to do what is in their nature to do, it's just bad for the world and them, that's all.

We love violence. It's in our nature. :roll:

I suppose it's your age, but you don't seem willing to accept other opinions, nor adapt yours when it has been proven false. I'm only 18, but I know a great deal about the world, and to be honest, you seem to miss some knowledge on how humans think. You'll learn tho, that's another thing we have been born to do.

Edit: Damn you Mr. Hahn. Outposted me AGAIN!!! :x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modern man is if I remember correcty about 1000 years old' date=' so half of that time was spent in a world filled with war.[/quote']

You actually are way off. Jesus was born over 2000 years ago, and modern man has existed since long before his time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's actually around 300,000-400,000 years ago that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus. Modern humans then evolved about 100,000-200,000 years ago. Close enough though. :wink:

As I was saying, 70, 2000, 5000 years ago is small apples. Violence even existed in prehuman species. Violence has been around since little amoebas began swallowing each other. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's actually around 300' date='000-400,000 years ago that homo sapiens evolved from homo erectus. Close enough though. :wink:[/quote']

Nice edit. But were we able of launching wars at that time? I kinda doubt that, clan versus clan was as big as it got at that time. Or village vs village, but that's the same thing back then.

I personnaly consider the end of the Ice Age the start of modern man. Don't ask me why :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main Entry: 1war

Pronunciation: 'wor

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse

1 a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : STATE OF WAR b : the art or science of warfare c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war

2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease> c : VARIANCE, ODDS 3

- war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PeePs

ok, i read like 1.2 the posts then stopped because this is a ridiculous argument. How the **** did Halo 2 get compared to a decline in violence? It's not even a very violent game lol....... gingangguly you say your a "young teen" and you don't like violent video games....

feg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn you guys are funny. halo 2 is a fun game its not about the violence, its about teaming up on X BOX live, more like capture the flag.

when you talk about how you think violence will come to an end, remember that nothing on this earth is linear. it will ebb and flow, increase and decrease at different rates, depending on unforeseeable situations. things are very uptight these days, and yeah i think its sad that an upset christian mother can influence the content of video games, a fat guy can sue mcdonalds for 'super sizing' him, and a clumsy woman can get money for spilling hot coffee on herself.

freedom of speech is one thing ( as seen in this thread ) but the events mentioned above bring clarity to the suprising ignorance of the general population ( as also seen in this thread )

P.S. DAMON I HAVE SHIT READY FOR YOU I NEED YOUR FEEDBACK TO CONTINUE PRODUCTION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol funny how every topic in every forum never fails to go off-topic in some way. :lol:

annnnnnyways, video games arent the cause of violence, people are just violent by nature. we had wars before video games and movies and before plays even so lets just drop that subject...

also, video games dont have a point but to entertain someone long enough so they shell out 50 bucks for it then keep them entertained just long enough so they wont return it. lol, i love video games, but thats everythings purpose that u can buy. however, if u want to look past that, :wink: , then the point of video games is just to entertain, not encourage violence or drive really fast through streets or kill cops or whatever. if someone takes it the wrong way, thats their fault, not video games. it just depends on the person. ive played video games since before i understood what i was doing (back in the NES days) and ive never had a thought of going and running over a crowd of gangsters, then get out of the car and use a flamehrower on the rest, then take a sniper rifle and wait for the cops to show then blow their heads off like u can in grand theft auto cuz i know its not real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

video games arent the cause of violence,

i know vidoe games dont cause violence but should we really make games out of things so serious. I am especially against games based on war. War is something nearly nobody can say they support war's but as soon as i say their is no problem with certain levels of violence some people with sharp tounges will say but technically this type of violence is more like something or another and eventually if i dont draw the line somewhere and stick to it i end up having to retract half my statements so i choose to be against the whole violence concept full stop. That way their can be no "What abouts" or "but in this circumstance"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
video games arent the cause of violence,

i know vidoe games dont cause violence but should we really make games out of things so serious. I am especially against games based on war. War is something nearly nobody can say they support war's but as soon as i say their is no problem with certain levels of violence some people with sharp tounges will say but technically this type of violence is more like something or another and eventually if i dont draw the line somewhere and stick to it i end up having to retract half my statements so i choose to be against the whole violence concept full stop. That way their can be no "What abouts" or "but in this circumstance"

You're still not getting it. Games are made for entertainment purposes. Pretty much any content in a game is acceptable, depending on the person playing of course, as long as they can seperate fact from fiction. I'm pretty much reiterating what everyone here and myself have told you many times. The fact that you can't accept why some people may enjoy something while you don't shows your lack of openmindedness and perhaps ignorance. As for your little decline in violence theory, there are too many flaws to even consider it. You need to learn that you've only just begun life and don't know near what you think you do. Learn from others and don't think that since you believe something to be true, that it actually is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the entire point. You have your principles, and that's fine. However, thinking everyone should have those same principles is rediculous. Noone here is trying to change any principles you may have. In fact, most of us have that same principle: violence is bad. However, there's a huge difference between violence in games and violence in real life. Again, that's where seperating fact from fiction comes to play.

As for your reduction in violence over time theory, that isn't a principle, it's a theory, and that theory has been proven to be unfactual.

Just a guess, but was your mom and/or dad in one of those peaceful hippie movements in the 60's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and know my parents arent hippies but my dad is a senator who tries halt so much violence practical or theoretical i'm like an assasin compared to him.

now just bear with me for a moment i have some questions which will make sense in the end,

A)your english arent u

B) What relgion are u

C)is their a special protocall im supposed to follow when creating a thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...