Molesting children and torturing people can be a lot of fun too.I've got a fantastic argument in favor of even the most mindless of entertainment: it's fun. It must be stressful to always attempt to justify every aspect of one's existence.
-
The perceiver comes out of the environment. If Second Life doesn't actually stimulate thought, but suffocates it, then the perceiver fades.Tharan: Anything is both perceptive and nourishing, and non-perceptive and non-nourishing. It depends on the perciever.
Kelly: Well, is there really a perceiver in this particular context? I mean, "something one trades consciousness/thought for" is nourishing and cultivating unconsciousness.
You were getting sloppy. The technique may have woken you up just a tad.Tharan wrote:You show your emotions, Kelly. I like it.
If a person knows without doubt what enlightenment means, and can maintain it, then it would be logical to say "I am a sage".One of the biggest hurdles after the first stage is to get people out of the I-think-I-am-a-sage-now mindset.
I noticed you use the title "Warmongering Pussy" on Common Ascent. It suits your current character.You slipped out easily, resorted to namecalling, and yet quickly shifted your eyes back to the prize. It tells me you are not overly ashamed of who you were, which is good. I like it real.
Well, how about this:As far as your opinions on what is real, how you might masturbate your hypothetical penis, ect. I have no comment on.
I didn't state that. Just said that arguments for them were sloppy.Ryan Rudolph wrote:I think you're rather neurotic over proving that these virtual worlds like Second Life have absolutely no value at all
EI: I've got a fantastic argument in favor of even the most mindless of entertainment: it's fun. It must be stressful to always attempt to justify every aspect of one's existence.
DQ: Molesting children and torturing people can be a lot of fun too.
EI: ... if you're a sociopath. Such things sound downright repulsive to me.
You're trying to make a sweeping generalization here. It doesn't follow from the fact that some activities can't be justified on the basis of their being fun, that all activities then can't be justified on such a basis.You're no fun. Like the Second Lifers, the molesters and torturers are engaging in mindless entertainment, so what's the problem?
The circumstances are different. It's as easy as that. Your comparing apples and oranges here. Anyone who isn't a sociopath can see the difference between harmless games and sadistic criminal behavior. Furthermore, your suggestion that I'm "holding up the virtue of mindless fun" is an outright straw man. I've never claimed that playing games was virtuous, only justifiable. I don't extend the same principle to both cases because they don't both entail the same social, ethical, and personal consequences. For one thing, you aren't going to end up in jail for playing a game.You ticked off Kelly for thinking about the consequences of her actions, holding up the virtue of mindless fun in its stead. So I'm wondering why you don't extend the same principle to child molesters and torturers.
This is another man of straw. I never suggested that I didn't analyze both situations, and in fact, I anticipated that someone was going to respond exactly as you did prior to making my original post. Despite the fact that I generally do analyze such things, I will say that one more-or-less can spontaneously know what is right or wrong in this case, given that the consequences of both actions are extravagantly different. You can analyze them all you like, but they remain apples an oranges, and you'll have trouble justifying to any sane person that playing a computer game (or whatever it is that started this discussion) is the equivalent of torture.How do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of mindless fun without actually analyzing each of the possibilities? Or do you just spontaneously know what is good behaviour and what is bad?
DQ: You ticked off Kelly for thinking about the consequences of her actions, holding up the virtue of mindless fun in its stead. So I'm wondering why you don't extend the same principle to child molesters and torturers.
EI: The circumstances are different. It's as easy as that. Your comparing apples and oranges here. Anyone who isn't a sociopath can see the difference between harmless games and sadistic criminal behavior.
Furthermore, your suggestion that I'm "holding up the virtue of mindless fun" is an outright straw man. I've never claimed that playing games was virtuous, only justifiable.
That may well be, but it doesn't mean that there aren't other kinds of harmful consequences to playing computer games. How is one supposed to investigate this without analyzing the situation?I don't extend the same principle to both cases because they don't both entail the same social, ethical, and personal consequences. For one thing, you aren't going to end up in jail for playing a game.
DQ: How do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of mindless fun without actually analyzing each of the possibilities? Or do you just spontaneously know what is good behaviour and what is bad?
EI: This is another man of straw. I never suggested that I didn't analyze both situations, and in fact, I anticipated that someone was going to respond exactly as you did prior to making my original post. Despite the fact that I generally do analyze such things, I will say that one more-or-less can spontaneously know what is right or wrong in this case, given that the consequences of both actions are extravagantly different.
Really?? I'm pretty sure I could dig up some examples of behavior that in some societies - or in some contexts - would be considered harmless and normal, while in a different society or context would be seen as criminal or sadistic.ExpectantlyIronic wrote:Anyone who isn't a sociopath can see the difference between harmless games and sadistic criminal behavior.
It depends upon how mature the individual playing them is. That's really besides the point though, unless your insinuating that such things are the reason behind taking issue with the game in question.What about computer games which involve molesting and torture? There are some games out there which feature rape, drive-by shootings, drug-dealing, running over children, etc. Is it harmful to play these games or not?
No, I really wasn't. I value thinking over mindless fun as well, although I find thinking to be fun (a mindful fun?). A person just doesn't have to choose one or the other. A person can easily spend some of their time pondering consciousness, and another part of their time playing Super Mario or whatnot.Don't be coy. You were openly mocking Kelly for valuing thinking over mindless fun.
I'd contend that I'm encouraging thinking by exposing more sides of the issue.I still don't understand why you thought it worthwhile to come onto a philosophical forum and start mocking people for thinking.
I really don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand. Are you suggesting that fun isn't a valid motivation for action when mitigating circumstances don't exist to trump it? If not, then I don't even know what point you're trying to make, because it's got nothing to do with what I've said.Some people think that having sex with children is a good thing because it helps children become more relaxed about sexual intimacy and reduces their sexual hang-ups. And many people think that torture is a good thing in some circumstances - e.g. when trying to extract information from a Muslim fundamentalist about a possible terrorist attack.
I'm talking about this society and context. Regardless, what's your point here? Are you suggesting that you can't see the difference between the video game mentioned in this thread and child molestation? You'll have to forgive me for my lack of precision in wording there, but try to understand what I say in it's proper context, as it has to do with the overall point. I tend to frame what I say around my point, and thus I don't always ensure that every sentence when taken in isolation says something 100% accurate. In fact, W. O. Quine once suggested that no proposition can be true when taken in isolation of a larger context.Really?? I'm pretty sure I could dig up some examples of behavior that in some societies - or in some contexts - would be considered harmless and normal, while in a different society or context would be seen as criminal or sadistic.
So which is it? Do you place every point in relation to the largest context (everything), or do you not bother justifying every point in relation to that context?I tend to frame what I say around my point, and thus I don't always ensure that every sentence when taken in isolation says something 100% accurate. In fact, W. O. Quine once suggested that no proposition can be true when taken in isolation of a larger context.
DQ: What about computer games which involve molesting and torture? There are some games out there which feature rape, drive-by shootings, drug-dealing, running over children, etc. Is it harmful to play these games or not?
EI: It depends upon how mature the individual playing them is.
DQ: Don't be coy. You were openly mocking Kelly for valuing thinking over mindless fun.
EI: No, I really wasn't.
I value thinking over mindless fun as well, although I find thinking to be fun (a mindful fun?). A person just doesn't have to choose one or the other. A person can easily spend some of their time pondering consciousness, and another part of their time playing Super Mario or whatnot.
DQ: Some people think that having sex with children is a good thing because it helps children become more relaxed about sexual intimacy and reduces their sexual hang-ups. And many people think that torture is a good thing in some circumstances - e.g. when trying to extract information from a Muslim fundamentalist about a possible terrorist attack.
EI: I really don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand. Are you suggesting that fun isn't a valid motivation for action when mitigating circumstances don't exist to trump it?
I suppose my main point is that everything we do has consequences and there is really no such thing as harmless behaviour. Our every action, big or small, has positive and negative consequences, and the thoughtful, responsible person is obliged to be aware of them.If not, then I don't even know what point you're trying to make, because it's got nothing to do with what I've said.
That seems like a very sensible approach if you add that the awareness should guide one's actions to minimize the harm.David Quinn wrote:I suppose my main point is that everything we do has consequences and there is really no such thing as harmless behaviour. Our every action, big or small, has positive and negative consequences, and the thoughtful, responsible person is obliged to be aware of them.
Tharan wrote:You are calling for decisions out of context, Kelly. It is like pulling a fish from the water, holding it up so your students can watch it die, and saying "See? See, how weak these creatures really are?"