<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_01_0322237</id>
	<title>On Realism and Virtual Murder</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246470240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Gamasutra has an interesting article about how the push toward realistic graphics and extremely lifelike characters in modern games is making the term "murder simulator" &mdash; once laughed off for referring to pixelated dying Nazis &mdash; <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news\_index.php?story=23844">a concept to take more seriously</a>. The author is careful to simply explore the issue, and not come to a specific conclusion; he doesn't say that we should or shouldn't prevent it from happening, only that it's worth consideration. (One section is even titled "Forget the kids," saying that decisions for what children play fall under parental responsibility.) Quoting:
<i>"We should start rethinking these issues now before we all slide down the slope together and can't pull ourselves back up again. Or, even worse, before governments step in and dictate what can and can't be depicted or simulated in video games via legislation. ... Obviously, what makes an acceptable game play experience for each player is a personal choice that should be judged on a person-by-person basis (or on a parent to child basis), and I believe it should stay that way. As for me, I'm already drawing the line at <em>BioShock</em> &mdash; I can barely stomach the game as it is. Sure, I could play it more and desensitize myself, but I don't want to. And that's just me. It's up to you and a million other adult gamers to decide what's best for yourselves and to draw the line on virtual violence where you feel most comfortable."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gamasutra has an interesting article about how the push toward realistic graphics and extremely lifelike characters in modern games is making the term " murder simulator "    once laughed off for referring to pixelated dying Nazis    a concept to take more seriously .
The author is careful to simply explore the issue , and not come to a specific conclusion ; he does n't say that we should or should n't prevent it from happening , only that it 's worth consideration .
( One section is even titled " Forget the kids , " saying that decisions for what children play fall under parental responsibility .
) Quoting : " We should start rethinking these issues now before we all slide down the slope together and ca n't pull ourselves back up again .
Or , even worse , before governments step in and dictate what can and ca n't be depicted or simulated in video games via legislation .
... Obviously , what makes an acceptable game play experience for each player is a personal choice that should be judged on a person-by-person basis ( or on a parent to child basis ) , and I believe it should stay that way .
As for me , I 'm already drawing the line at BioShock    I can barely stomach the game as it is .
Sure , I could play it more and desensitize myself , but I do n't want to .
And that 's just me .
It 's up to you and a million other adult gamers to decide what 's best for yourselves and to draw the line on virtual violence where you feel most comfortable .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gamasutra has an interesting article about how the push toward realistic graphics and extremely lifelike characters in modern games is making the term "murder simulator" — once laughed off for referring to pixelated dying Nazis — a concept to take more seriously.
The author is careful to simply explore the issue, and not come to a specific conclusion; he doesn't say that we should or shouldn't prevent it from happening, only that it's worth consideration.
(One section is even titled "Forget the kids," saying that decisions for what children play fall under parental responsibility.
) Quoting:
"We should start rethinking these issues now before we all slide down the slope together and can't pull ourselves back up again.
Or, even worse, before governments step in and dictate what can and can't be depicted or simulated in video games via legislation.
... Obviously, what makes an acceptable game play experience for each player is a personal choice that should be judged on a person-by-person basis (or on a parent to child basis), and I believe it should stay that way.
As for me, I'm already drawing the line at BioShock — I can barely stomach the game as it is.
Sure, I could play it more and desensitize myself, but I don't want to.
And that's just me.
It's up to you and a million other adult gamers to decide what's best for yourselves and to draw the line on virtual violence where you feel most comfortable.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539191</id>
	<title>Its all about self restriction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246390260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with the self restriction. I personally can't stomach games like gears of war because its too nasty with blood and guts, and I'm 14. People need to draw the line for themselves, and parents need to actually talk to their kids, not just sit them in front of barney... because that is even worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the self restriction .
I personally ca n't stomach games like gears of war because its too nasty with blood and guts , and I 'm 14 .
People need to draw the line for themselves , and parents need to actually talk to their kids , not just sit them in front of barney... because that is even worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the self restriction.
I personally can't stomach games like gears of war because its too nasty with blood and guts, and I'm 14.
People need to draw the line for themselves, and parents need to actually talk to their kids, not just sit them in front of barney... because that is even worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539751</id>
	<title>Sorry, not buying the bullshit</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1246440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one thing, any time someone gets in to the whole operant conditioning thing as though it controls human behaviour, it tells me they have a very outdated knowledge of psychology. Humans are way more complex than that. We are not stimulus-response machines. That isn't to say that doesn't play a role in human action, but it isn't how humans work. The philosophy of Skinner et al has long since been shown to be far too simplistic. In language, for example, any sort of "blank slate" assumption for teaching doesn't work. Humans have an innate capacity for language as has been demonstrated time and time again. That doesn't, of course, mean that they will develop language without outside influence, but it does mean that there's more to it than "conditioned response."</p><p>Then there's also the fact that despite all his chatter about WWII, it was the deadliest one in human history. None of the post WWII wars even break the top 10.</p><p>Finally there's the fact that if media, in particular video games, are teaching kids to kill, why is it that violence is dropping? Have a look at the BJS page on it (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm). Looks like violent crimes have been on a major downward trend in the US for some time. This is the same country that has plenty of violent movies, tons and tons of video game systems, and so on. This is during the period when videogames went from a niche kids toy for geeks to a major entertainment for the masses of all ages.</p><p>So if this conditioning is supposed to be happening, why is the trend the opposite? That really screws the argument right there. There is greater access to video games, and they are getting more realistic, yet the rate of violent crimes is dropping. That means it is pretyt silly on the face of it to say "Violent video games lead to more violent crime." No, they don't seem to at all. The evidence falsifies your theory, revise it or throw it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one thing , any time someone gets in to the whole operant conditioning thing as though it controls human behaviour , it tells me they have a very outdated knowledge of psychology .
Humans are way more complex than that .
We are not stimulus-response machines .
That is n't to say that does n't play a role in human action , but it is n't how humans work .
The philosophy of Skinner et al has long since been shown to be far too simplistic .
In language , for example , any sort of " blank slate " assumption for teaching does n't work .
Humans have an innate capacity for language as has been demonstrated time and time again .
That does n't , of course , mean that they will develop language without outside influence , but it does mean that there 's more to it than " conditioned response .
" Then there 's also the fact that despite all his chatter about WWII , it was the deadliest one in human history .
None of the post WWII wars even break the top 10.Finally there 's the fact that if media , in particular video games , are teaching kids to kill , why is it that violence is dropping ?
Have a look at the BJS page on it ( http : //www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm ) .
Looks like violent crimes have been on a major downward trend in the US for some time .
This is the same country that has plenty of violent movies , tons and tons of video game systems , and so on .
This is during the period when videogames went from a niche kids toy for geeks to a major entertainment for the masses of all ages.So if this conditioning is supposed to be happening , why is the trend the opposite ?
That really screws the argument right there .
There is greater access to video games , and they are getting more realistic , yet the rate of violent crimes is dropping .
That means it is pretyt silly on the face of it to say " Violent video games lead to more violent crime .
" No , they do n't seem to at all .
The evidence falsifies your theory , revise it or throw it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one thing, any time someone gets in to the whole operant conditioning thing as though it controls human behaviour, it tells me they have a very outdated knowledge of psychology.
Humans are way more complex than that.
We are not stimulus-response machines.
That isn't to say that doesn't play a role in human action, but it isn't how humans work.
The philosophy of Skinner et al has long since been shown to be far too simplistic.
In language, for example, any sort of "blank slate" assumption for teaching doesn't work.
Humans have an innate capacity for language as has been demonstrated time and time again.
That doesn't, of course, mean that they will develop language without outside influence, but it does mean that there's more to it than "conditioned response.
"Then there's also the fact that despite all his chatter about WWII, it was the deadliest one in human history.
None of the post WWII wars even break the top 10.Finally there's the fact that if media, in particular video games, are teaching kids to kill, why is it that violence is dropping?
Have a look at the BJS page on it (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm).
Looks like violent crimes have been on a major downward trend in the US for some time.
This is the same country that has plenty of violent movies, tons and tons of video game systems, and so on.
This is during the period when videogames went from a niche kids toy for geeks to a major entertainment for the masses of all ages.So if this conditioning is supposed to be happening, why is the trend the opposite?
That really screws the argument right there.
There is greater access to video games, and they are getting more realistic, yet the rate of violent crimes is dropping.
That means it is pretyt silly on the face of it to say "Violent video games lead to more violent crime.
" No, they don't seem to at all.
The evidence falsifies your theory, revise it or throw it out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542563</id>
	<title>Seriously get some perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone prone to do the stuff that's done in videogames would never make it past 5 years old.</p><p>- Darwin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone prone to do the stuff that 's done in videogames would never make it past 5 years old.- Darwin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone prone to do the stuff that's done in videogames would never make it past 5 years old.- Darwin</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28551333</id>
	<title>Metal Gear Solid 3</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1246449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the last bosses in Metal Gear Solid 3 is the Sorrow, who you cannot shoot or blow up or stab or do anything to. You have to walk down a river which is populated by the ghosts of all the guards you've killed throughout the game - and in MGS killing guards is optional, only bosses are sometimes necessary to kill - and each time their ghost passes through your body, you lose health. The guards are scared, screaming, and suffering from their fatal wounds. How many guards you kill determines how far you have to slowly trench upstream. I almost didn't make it - I died about fifteen times because there were so many ghosts that I just couldn't avoid them. That's what this article is talking about. Why do people go into stores and ask for the goriest game available?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the last bosses in Metal Gear Solid 3 is the Sorrow , who you can not shoot or blow up or stab or do anything to .
You have to walk down a river which is populated by the ghosts of all the guards you 've killed throughout the game - and in MGS killing guards is optional , only bosses are sometimes necessary to kill - and each time their ghost passes through your body , you lose health .
The guards are scared , screaming , and suffering from their fatal wounds .
How many guards you kill determines how far you have to slowly trench upstream .
I almost did n't make it - I died about fifteen times because there were so many ghosts that I just could n't avoid them .
That 's what this article is talking about .
Why do people go into stores and ask for the goriest game available ?
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the last bosses in Metal Gear Solid 3 is the Sorrow, who you cannot shoot or blow up or stab or do anything to.
You have to walk down a river which is populated by the ghosts of all the guards you've killed throughout the game - and in MGS killing guards is optional, only bosses are sometimes necessary to kill - and each time their ghost passes through your body, you lose health.
The guards are scared, screaming, and suffering from their fatal wounds.
How many guards you kill determines how far you have to slowly trench upstream.
I almost didn't make it - I died about fifteen times because there were so many ghosts that I just couldn't avoid them.
That's what this article is talking about.
Why do people go into stores and ask for the goriest game available?
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539921</id>
	<title>Then Now and the Future.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246443240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember playing Golden Eye for the N46 and having a blast obviously you killed people but the graphics were part of the separation. But fast forward to now I start feeling... weird, playing any of the recent games for example take any recent call of duty game. Right now I think it was much easier for generations growing up and seeing the transition from 8 bit graphics in to simple 3d, into better 3d and son and understand the difference between game and reality but even though its been what only 12 years ago? For people jumping in now the lines are already starting to disappear, other then threat of punishment when the lines between what can be seen in a game and reality are the same how the hell is someone who grows up with that going to be able to distance themselves and say its only a game? Granted we arent there yet but I think its a legitimate question.</p><p>Take these two examples. A generation grew up playing this  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUYDasbkHcY&amp;feature=relatedurl and a generation having only seen on a level like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6-LUTamWko .</p><p>
&nbsp; Maybe I just don't like the idea of consequences of war or death being transformed into a game like perception so I may be a bit biased but I think some consideration into the effects of this should definitely be discussed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember playing Golden Eye for the N46 and having a blast obviously you killed people but the graphics were part of the separation .
But fast forward to now I start feeling... weird , playing any of the recent games for example take any recent call of duty game .
Right now I think it was much easier for generations growing up and seeing the transition from 8 bit graphics in to simple 3d , into better 3d and son and understand the difference between game and reality but even though its been what only 12 years ago ?
For people jumping in now the lines are already starting to disappear , other then threat of punishment when the lines between what can be seen in a game and reality are the same how the hell is someone who grows up with that going to be able to distance themselves and say its only a game ?
Granted we arent there yet but I think its a legitimate question.Take these two examples .
A generation grew up playing this http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = tUYDasbkHcY&amp;feature = relatedurl and a generation having only seen on a level like this http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = c6-LUTamWko .
  Maybe I just do n't like the idea of consequences of war or death being transformed into a game like perception so I may be a bit biased but I think some consideration into the effects of this should definitely be discussed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember playing Golden Eye for the N46 and having a blast obviously you killed people but the graphics were part of the separation.
But fast forward to now I start feeling... weird, playing any of the recent games for example take any recent call of duty game.
Right now I think it was much easier for generations growing up and seeing the transition from 8 bit graphics in to simple 3d, into better 3d and son and understand the difference between game and reality but even though its been what only 12 years ago?
For people jumping in now the lines are already starting to disappear, other then threat of punishment when the lines between what can be seen in a game and reality are the same how the hell is someone who grows up with that going to be able to distance themselves and say its only a game?
Granted we arent there yet but I think its a legitimate question.Take these two examples.
A generation grew up playing this  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUYDasbkHcY&amp;feature=relatedurl and a generation having only seen on a level like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6-LUTamWko .
  Maybe I just don't like the idea of consequences of war or death being transformed into a game like perception so I may be a bit biased but I think some consideration into the effects of this should definitely be discussed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539009</id>
	<title>ESRB anyone?</title>
	<author>bertoelcon</author>
	<datestamp>1246388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wasn't this the role of the ESRB to judge games and give ratings that a parent/guardian could use?<p>I know there are rebel kids that get the games anyway, but punishments have gone out to for kids.</p><p>Leading to the "just let them do it" conversations that occur, thinking that there is no way the game is that bad.</p><p>However it will only become a bad influence when people do something that is a "bad thing", which it often to late.</p><p>
Overall, the system has low and high points of what is the social norm, and certain levels of violence in games are normal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't this the role of the ESRB to judge games and give ratings that a parent/guardian could use ? I know there are rebel kids that get the games anyway , but punishments have gone out to for kids.Leading to the " just let them do it " conversations that occur , thinking that there is no way the game is that bad.However it will only become a bad influence when people do something that is a " bad thing " , which it often to late .
Overall , the system has low and high points of what is the social norm , and certain levels of violence in games are normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't this the role of the ESRB to judge games and give ratings that a parent/guardian could use?I know there are rebel kids that get the games anyway, but punishments have gone out to for kids.Leading to the "just let them do it" conversations that occur, thinking that there is no way the game is that bad.However it will only become a bad influence when people do something that is a "bad thing", which it often to late.
Overall, the system has low and high points of what is the social norm, and certain levels of violence in games are normal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539869</id>
	<title>Note on Bioshock</title>
	<author>vmp32k</author>
	<datestamp>1246442640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though i mostly agree with the article, just a quick note on Bioshock:
You don't choose to murder every opponent in Bioshock, they keep attacking and you \_have\_ to act in self-defense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though i mostly agree with the article , just a quick note on Bioshock : You do n't choose to murder every opponent in Bioshock , they keep attacking and you \ _have \ _ to act in self-defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though i mostly agree with the article, just a quick note on Bioshock:
You don't choose to murder every opponent in Bioshock, they keep attacking and you \_have\_ to act in self-defense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539167</id>
	<title>Re:Is this for real?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246390020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference between real life and a game is becoming increasingly fine. That's kind of the point of the article.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between real life and a game is becoming increasingly fine .
That 's kind of the point of the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between real life and a game is becoming increasingly fine.
That's kind of the point of the article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543649</id>
	<title>Conflicted Compassion</title>
	<author>slippaggio</author>
	<datestamp>1246467840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am speaking as an indulger of violence and gore. There is a physical stimulation, an adrenal reaction when I am creating bloody messes in Fallout 3 or watching a person get sawed in half in High Tension. We like violent games because the more realistic they are the more they stimulate us.</p><p>To people that cite the fact that they are still able to feel something when they look at images of people who have been violently killed I have to question how proud one can really feel about this. Whether violence between people has been reduced throughout the world or not, the fact that we are constantly exposing ourselves to violent stimulus and even simulating them ourselves shouldn't worry us as much about how the player will then act out violently himself but how he views all of the pain and suffering of others; essentially, the player's ability to feel compassion.</p><p>People suffer every day whether it be from poverty and hunger or disasters or suicide bombings. These are true tragedies but we are able to ignore them all too easily till the images are plastered in front of us. Sure this isn't solely from violent video games but it is certainly among the factors contributing to an overstimulated, desensitized society.</p><p>You can talk all about the instinct of man to be violent and the survival of the fittest and all sorts of nasty aspects of human nature but shouldn't we try a little harder to cultivate the parts of our nature that make us a more loving, caring and generous society?</p><p>I guess I should just speak from my own experience and that is that I will continue to expose myself to these stimulations for the time being but there is a part of me that wishes I actually didn't feel the addictive urge to watch guts splatter across the screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am speaking as an indulger of violence and gore .
There is a physical stimulation , an adrenal reaction when I am creating bloody messes in Fallout 3 or watching a person get sawed in half in High Tension .
We like violent games because the more realistic they are the more they stimulate us.To people that cite the fact that they are still able to feel something when they look at images of people who have been violently killed I have to question how proud one can really feel about this .
Whether violence between people has been reduced throughout the world or not , the fact that we are constantly exposing ourselves to violent stimulus and even simulating them ourselves should n't worry us as much about how the player will then act out violently himself but how he views all of the pain and suffering of others ; essentially , the player 's ability to feel compassion.People suffer every day whether it be from poverty and hunger or disasters or suicide bombings .
These are true tragedies but we are able to ignore them all too easily till the images are plastered in front of us .
Sure this is n't solely from violent video games but it is certainly among the factors contributing to an overstimulated , desensitized society.You can talk all about the instinct of man to be violent and the survival of the fittest and all sorts of nasty aspects of human nature but should n't we try a little harder to cultivate the parts of our nature that make us a more loving , caring and generous society ? I guess I should just speak from my own experience and that is that I will continue to expose myself to these stimulations for the time being but there is a part of me that wishes I actually did n't feel the addictive urge to watch guts splatter across the screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am speaking as an indulger of violence and gore.
There is a physical stimulation, an adrenal reaction when I am creating bloody messes in Fallout 3 or watching a person get sawed in half in High Tension.
We like violent games because the more realistic they are the more they stimulate us.To people that cite the fact that they are still able to feel something when they look at images of people who have been violently killed I have to question how proud one can really feel about this.
Whether violence between people has been reduced throughout the world or not, the fact that we are constantly exposing ourselves to violent stimulus and even simulating them ourselves shouldn't worry us as much about how the player will then act out violently himself but how he views all of the pain and suffering of others; essentially, the player's ability to feel compassion.People suffer every day whether it be from poverty and hunger or disasters or suicide bombings.
These are true tragedies but we are able to ignore them all too easily till the images are plastered in front of us.
Sure this isn't solely from violent video games but it is certainly among the factors contributing to an overstimulated, desensitized society.You can talk all about the instinct of man to be violent and the survival of the fittest and all sorts of nasty aspects of human nature but shouldn't we try a little harder to cultivate the parts of our nature that make us a more loving, caring and generous society?I guess I should just speak from my own experience and that is that I will continue to expose myself to these stimulations for the time being but there is a part of me that wishes I actually didn't feel the addictive urge to watch guts splatter across the screen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539459</id>
	<title>Re:Perhapss most CAN'T understand...</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1246480440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead of saying that it isn't bad, that it isn't real, shouldn't we be asking ourselves how is it that we are unable to recognize it as real in the moment we are doing it.</p></div><p>Because... duh... it's not real.</p><p>I don't think it's any coincidence that the people who most believe that others can't distinguish between fantasy and reality seem unable to do so themselves.</p><p>Personally, I've been killing things in computer games for thirty years, yet I won't even kill a spider in the house if I can catch it and toss it out the door instead. But then I can tell what's real and what's not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of saying that it is n't bad , that it is n't real , should n't we be asking ourselves how is it that we are unable to recognize it as real in the moment we are doing it.Because... duh... it 's not real.I do n't think it 's any coincidence that the people who most believe that others ca n't distinguish between fantasy and reality seem unable to do so themselves.Personally , I 've been killing things in computer games for thirty years , yet I wo n't even kill a spider in the house if I can catch it and toss it out the door instead .
But then I can tell what 's real and what 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of saying that it isn't bad, that it isn't real, shouldn't we be asking ourselves how is it that we are unable to recognize it as real in the moment we are doing it.Because... duh... it's not real.I don't think it's any coincidence that the people who most believe that others can't distinguish between fantasy and reality seem unable to do so themselves.Personally, I've been killing things in computer games for thirty years, yet I won't even kill a spider in the house if I can catch it and toss it out the door instead.
But then I can tell what's real and what's not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541781</id>
	<title>A link to a better article on the subject</title>
	<author>Garwulf</author>
	<datestamp>1246460760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm afraid I found this article quite shallow when it comes down to it, although a lot of that is because last year I wrote a piece on this subject that was published in The Escapist as "The Anatomy of Violence."  It covered why some people call first person shooter games "murder simulators," what the psychological underpinnings are behind the theory, and what impact it can have in the real world.</p><p>There are two versions - the one The Escapist published was edited down a fair bit, and can be found here: <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue\_153/4960-The-Anatomy-of-Violence" title="escapistmagazine.com">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue\_153/4960-The-Anatomy-of-Violence</a> [escapistmagazine.com]</p><p>The "extended" version - the one The Escapist didn't edit down - can be found here: <a href="http://garwulf.livejournal.com/38455.html" title="livejournal.com">http://garwulf.livejournal.com/38455.html</a> [livejournal.com]</p><p>Not to put down the author of this article, but I think mine is really worth looking at here, and adds a lot that is missing (the SLA Marshall link is what makes the "murder simulator" theory make sense, among other things).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid I found this article quite shallow when it comes down to it , although a lot of that is because last year I wrote a piece on this subject that was published in The Escapist as " The Anatomy of Violence .
" It covered why some people call first person shooter games " murder simulators , " what the psychological underpinnings are behind the theory , and what impact it can have in the real world.There are two versions - the one The Escapist published was edited down a fair bit , and can be found here : http : //www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue \ _153/4960-The-Anatomy-of-Violence [ escapistmagazine.com ] The " extended " version - the one The Escapist did n't edit down - can be found here : http : //garwulf.livejournal.com/38455.html [ livejournal.com ] Not to put down the author of this article , but I think mine is really worth looking at here , and adds a lot that is missing ( the SLA Marshall link is what makes the " murder simulator " theory make sense , among other things ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm afraid I found this article quite shallow when it comes down to it, although a lot of that is because last year I wrote a piece on this subject that was published in The Escapist as "The Anatomy of Violence.
"  It covered why some people call first person shooter games "murder simulators," what the psychological underpinnings are behind the theory, and what impact it can have in the real world.There are two versions - the one The Escapist published was edited down a fair bit, and can be found here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue\_153/4960-The-Anatomy-of-Violence [escapistmagazine.com]The "extended" version - the one The Escapist didn't edit down - can be found here: http://garwulf.livejournal.com/38455.html [livejournal.com]Not to put down the author of this article, but I think mine is really worth looking at here, and adds a lot that is missing (the SLA Marshall link is what makes the "murder simulator" theory make sense, among other things).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539021</id>
	<title>it is NOT murder...</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1246388520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean... they get better, right? So how can it be murder, virtual or otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean... they get better , right ?
So how can it be murder , virtual or otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean... they get better, right?
So how can it be murder, virtual or otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539635</id>
	<title>Still laughable</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1246439460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yawn. <p>
Why would more realistic computer graphics have a stronger effect than the highly realistic special effects used in splatter movies?</p><p>

Sure, you will find some kooks who say "the gamez made me do it". They used to say that about EC comics, about Hitchcock movies. Loonies will have no problem finding something to trigger them. There's plenty of gore in the Bible, and a lot of nutters have been inspired by that to commit heinous crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn .
Why would more realistic computer graphics have a stronger effect than the highly realistic special effects used in splatter movies ?
Sure , you will find some kooks who say " the gamez made me do it " .
They used to say that about EC comics , about Hitchcock movies .
Loonies will have no problem finding something to trigger them .
There 's plenty of gore in the Bible , and a lot of nutters have been inspired by that to commit heinous crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn.
Why would more realistic computer graphics have a stronger effect than the highly realistic special effects used in splatter movies?
Sure, you will find some kooks who say "the gamez made me do it".
They used to say that about EC comics, about Hitchcock movies.
Loonies will have no problem finding something to trigger them.
There's plenty of gore in the Bible, and a lot of nutters have been inspired by that to commit heinous crimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539993</id>
	<title>Violence vs. sex?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If watching violence doesn't have any "real life" influences, what exactly was the problem with watching pr0n again?</p><p>Now before you all go cheering "right on!", how would you feel about games where you'd have to rape someone ("hey, it's not a real person!") to advance to the next level of gameplay?</p><p>I'm honestly not trying to troll, I'm seriously interested in why violence is considered "OK".  I personally haven't played computer games since Xevious on my Atari myself (because I know I would get addicted to them) and haven't really kept up with them, but I was shocked when I saw my nephew play some game (sorry, I forgot which one) where he shot an innocent bystander - some kind of secretary of librarian or something.  I was expecting this to be a major no-no, costing him points or something, but it turned out to be just fine.  I also saw him repeatedly shoot some already-dead guy "for extra points".  I just thought this was pretty weird from the game developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If watching violence does n't have any " real life " influences , what exactly was the problem with watching pr0n again ? Now before you all go cheering " right on !
" , how would you feel about games where you 'd have to rape someone ( " hey , it 's not a real person !
" ) to advance to the next level of gameplay ? I 'm honestly not trying to troll , I 'm seriously interested in why violence is considered " OK " .
I personally have n't played computer games since Xevious on my Atari myself ( because I know I would get addicted to them ) and have n't really kept up with them , but I was shocked when I saw my nephew play some game ( sorry , I forgot which one ) where he shot an innocent bystander - some kind of secretary of librarian or something .
I was expecting this to be a major no-no , costing him points or something , but it turned out to be just fine .
I also saw him repeatedly shoot some already-dead guy " for extra points " .
I just thought this was pretty weird from the game developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If watching violence doesn't have any "real life" influences, what exactly was the problem with watching pr0n again?Now before you all go cheering "right on!
", how would you feel about games where you'd have to rape someone ("hey, it's not a real person!
") to advance to the next level of gameplay?I'm honestly not trying to troll, I'm seriously interested in why violence is considered "OK".
I personally haven't played computer games since Xevious on my Atari myself (because I know I would get addicted to them) and haven't really kept up with them, but I was shocked when I saw my nephew play some game (sorry, I forgot which one) where he shot an innocent bystander - some kind of secretary of librarian or something.
I was expecting this to be a major no-no, costing him points or something, but it turned out to be just fine.
I also saw him repeatedly shoot some already-dead guy "for extra points".
I just thought this was pretty weird from the game developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539793</id>
	<title>New and fresh, eventually old and boring.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1246441740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtual murder might be fun, but as long as it is a game, we will get over it. No game lasts forever. Not even Tetris.</p><p>We are all interested in murder. We draw it, write it, film it, then read it, watch it, dream it... Yet, we can safely say most of us won't ever do it. These games  won't change that. All the game is is yet another outlet - a safe outlet. One of many many many.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtual murder might be fun , but as long as it is a game , we will get over it .
No game lasts forever .
Not even Tetris.We are all interested in murder .
We draw it , write it , film it , then read it , watch it , dream it... Yet , we can safely say most of us wo n't ever do it .
These games wo n't change that .
All the game is is yet another outlet - a safe outlet .
One of many many many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtual murder might be fun, but as long as it is a game, we will get over it.
No game lasts forever.
Not even Tetris.We are all interested in murder.
We draw it, write it, film it, then read it, watch it, dream it... Yet, we can safely say most of us won't ever do it.
These games  won't change that.
All the game is is yet another outlet - a safe outlet.
One of many many many.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541839</id>
	<title>5 second rule will vanish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just think of a guy playing one of these photo-realistic games for a month or so.  He's running about taking damage and healing himself by eating random Turkey legs of the street.  When this guy steps out of his house will he compulsively eat every food he sees on the ground?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just think of a guy playing one of these photo-realistic games for a month or so .
He 's running about taking damage and healing himself by eating random Turkey legs of the street .
When this guy steps out of his house will he compulsively eat every food he sees on the ground ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just think of a guy playing one of these photo-realistic games for a month or so.
He's running about taking damage and healing himself by eating random Turkey legs of the street.
When this guy steps out of his house will he compulsively eat every food he sees on the ground?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540001</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Healthy members of most species have a powerful, natural resistance to killing their own kind. Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads. Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranha turn their fangs on everything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes bite anything, but they wrestle one another.</p></div><p>Dog and wolves go for the throats of each other when in-fighting occurs. Big cats also go for the throats and soft underbellies of their fellow cats. Baby gulls peck each other to death and eat the loser.</p><p>Its a huge over-simplification to assume that animals have a 'powerful natural resistance' to killing their own kind - completely devoid of anything but anecdotal evidence. Not to mention that almost all predatory animals love to play fight, and this often ends in a feigned death by one.</p><p>If you're going to appeal to authority right at the start of argument, try appealing to one that doesn't base his arguments of fallacies as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Healthy members of most species have a powerful , natural resistance to killing their own kind .
Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads .
Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore .
Piranha turn their fangs on everything , but they fight one another with flicks of the tail .
Rattlesnakes bite anything , but they wrestle one another.Dog and wolves go for the throats of each other when in-fighting occurs .
Big cats also go for the throats and soft underbellies of their fellow cats .
Baby gulls peck each other to death and eat the loser.Its a huge over-simplification to assume that animals have a 'powerful natural resistance ' to killing their own kind - completely devoid of anything but anecdotal evidence .
Not to mention that almost all predatory animals love to play fight , and this often ends in a feigned death by one.If you 're going to appeal to authority right at the start of argument , try appealing to one that does n't base his arguments of fallacies as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Healthy members of most species have a powerful, natural resistance to killing their own kind.
Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads.
Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore.
Piranha turn their fangs on everything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail.
Rattlesnakes bite anything, but they wrestle one another.Dog and wolves go for the throats of each other when in-fighting occurs.
Big cats also go for the throats and soft underbellies of their fellow cats.
Baby gulls peck each other to death and eat the loser.Its a huge over-simplification to assume that animals have a 'powerful natural resistance' to killing their own kind - completely devoid of anything but anecdotal evidence.
Not to mention that almost all predatory animals love to play fight, and this often ends in a feigned death by one.If you're going to appeal to authority right at the start of argument, try appealing to one that doesn't base his arguments of fallacies as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541131</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>evil\_breeds</author>
	<datestamp>1246457040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have killed more people than Hitler. It's true.
I have murdered millions of Nazis and slaughtered as many dragons. I have raped Native Americans and killed hundreds of thousands of cops. I have killed aliens that looked like pigs dressed as cops. I have destroyed feminism by flashing cash at strippers. I have committed genocide. I have wiped the earth clean of barbarians, Romans, Egyptians, Germans, and the Mongols. I have brought sword to creatures great and small because they may be carrying gold. I have killed creatures and then thrown away anything they were carrying because I did not deem it worthy.  I have lied, cheated and double crossed denizens of the wasteland, a fairy kingdom, an ancient alien race and time travelers. I have shot mutants and bounty hunters in the groin and face. After killing someone else who I have never met and who had done me no wrong I crouched over his dead body and tea bagged him. I have enslaved a star faring race and then traded those slaves for military secrets. I have spied on other countries, planets and star systems and sabotaged numerous public works to cause strife and disorder. I have starved cities and brought whips down on my workers so that they may finish great works in my name before someone else did the same. I have stabbed kings and rezoned miles of pristine wilderness into ash spewing city hell holes. I have built nuclear reactors and then let them go critical so that I may laugh at the death toll and then, while the people were still putting out the atomic fires, I have unleashed Godzilla and a hurricane onto them. I have built swimming pools and then removed the exit ladders to watch people drown. I have smashed buildings to grab people inside and then eat them.</p></div><p>...but you still haven't gone to college.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have killed more people than Hitler .
It 's true .
I have murdered millions of Nazis and slaughtered as many dragons .
I have raped Native Americans and killed hundreds of thousands of cops .
I have killed aliens that looked like pigs dressed as cops .
I have destroyed feminism by flashing cash at strippers .
I have committed genocide .
I have wiped the earth clean of barbarians , Romans , Egyptians , Germans , and the Mongols .
I have brought sword to creatures great and small because they may be carrying gold .
I have killed creatures and then thrown away anything they were carrying because I did not deem it worthy .
I have lied , cheated and double crossed denizens of the wasteland , a fairy kingdom , an ancient alien race and time travelers .
I have shot mutants and bounty hunters in the groin and face .
After killing someone else who I have never met and who had done me no wrong I crouched over his dead body and tea bagged him .
I have enslaved a star faring race and then traded those slaves for military secrets .
I have spied on other countries , planets and star systems and sabotaged numerous public works to cause strife and disorder .
I have starved cities and brought whips down on my workers so that they may finish great works in my name before someone else did the same .
I have stabbed kings and rezoned miles of pristine wilderness into ash spewing city hell holes .
I have built nuclear reactors and then let them go critical so that I may laugh at the death toll and then , while the people were still putting out the atomic fires , I have unleashed Godzilla and a hurricane onto them .
I have built swimming pools and then removed the exit ladders to watch people drown .
I have smashed buildings to grab people inside and then eat them....but you still have n't gone to college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have killed more people than Hitler.
It's true.
I have murdered millions of Nazis and slaughtered as many dragons.
I have raped Native Americans and killed hundreds of thousands of cops.
I have killed aliens that looked like pigs dressed as cops.
I have destroyed feminism by flashing cash at strippers.
I have committed genocide.
I have wiped the earth clean of barbarians, Romans, Egyptians, Germans, and the Mongols.
I have brought sword to creatures great and small because they may be carrying gold.
I have killed creatures and then thrown away anything they were carrying because I did not deem it worthy.
I have lied, cheated and double crossed denizens of the wasteland, a fairy kingdom, an ancient alien race and time travelers.
I have shot mutants and bounty hunters in the groin and face.
After killing someone else who I have never met and who had done me no wrong I crouched over his dead body and tea bagged him.
I have enslaved a star faring race and then traded those slaves for military secrets.
I have spied on other countries, planets and star systems and sabotaged numerous public works to cause strife and disorder.
I have starved cities and brought whips down on my workers so that they may finish great works in my name before someone else did the same.
I have stabbed kings and rezoned miles of pristine wilderness into ash spewing city hell holes.
I have built nuclear reactors and then let them go critical so that I may laugh at the death toll and then, while the people were still putting out the atomic fires, I have unleashed Godzilla and a hurricane onto them.
I have built swimming pools and then removed the exit ladders to watch people drown.
I have smashed buildings to grab people inside and then eat them....but you still haven't gone to college.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539597</id>
	<title>It Won't Work</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246439160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         The problem with self regulation or self control is that it is even worse than governmental controls. Think about it in terms of crime. How many criminals believe that they are doing the right thing whether it is driving drunk or molesting little children the last thing a criminal mind worries about is whether it is doing the right thing. The notion of self control particularly over long range effects of watching violent content is just not something that many people worry about.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You see the same attitude in illegal drug use. People feel that it is not them that can become the wretched addict. They feel that somehow they can handle it. So how many people feel that they will be the one to strike out in totally uncalled for violence when they subject themselves to huge doses of game and movie violence?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with self regulation or self control is that it is even worse than governmental controls .
Think about it in terms of crime .
How many criminals believe that they are doing the right thing whether it is driving drunk or molesting little children the last thing a criminal mind worries about is whether it is doing the right thing .
The notion of self control particularly over long range effects of watching violent content is just not something that many people worry about .
                  You see the same attitude in illegal drug use .
People feel that it is not them that can become the wretched addict .
They feel that somehow they can handle it .
So how many people feel that they will be the one to strike out in totally uncalled for violence when they subject themselves to huge doses of game and movie violence ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         The problem with self regulation or self control is that it is even worse than governmental controls.
Think about it in terms of crime.
How many criminals believe that they are doing the right thing whether it is driving drunk or molesting little children the last thing a criminal mind worries about is whether it is doing the right thing.
The notion of self control particularly over long range effects of watching violent content is just not something that many people worry about.
                  You see the same attitude in illegal drug use.
People feel that it is not them that can become the wretched addict.
They feel that somehow they can handle it.
So how many people feel that they will be the one to strike out in totally uncalled for violence when they subject themselves to huge doses of game and movie violence?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539527</id>
	<title>The amazingly true predictions of Alsee</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1246481400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I used to laugh at the term "murder simulator" when it was bandied about by knee-jerk opponents of video violence some years ago. Preposterous, I said: video is video -- easily distinguishable from reality, and reasonable people know the difference between fantasy and reality. That was in the <i>Gunsmoke</i> <i>Night Of The Living Dead</i>, where the violence seemed cartoonish in black&amp;white. And I love those movies and TV shows</p><p>Then I watched <i>The Adventures Of Robin Hood</i>. The blood was <b>in color</b>, and it was red. For the first time, hell started to freeze over, and I found myself beginning to understand the critics' point of view. As videos inched ever closer to absolute photorealism (which some industry professionals believe to be no more than 10-15 years away), violent video critics' arguments are slowly beginning to look more sane. And yes, you're reading this from a life-long video fan who staunchly opposes institutional artistic censorship.</p><p>But censorship is peanuts compared to the conundrums we'll be facing in the future with our favorite hobby. Once our video of the real world (still called, somewhat quaintly, "movies and television") begin to effectively duplicate reality, the issue of video violence won't be a matter of artistic merit or censorship anymore. It will quickly become a matter of morality, ethics, and law.</p><p>The coming storm is inevitable: turn one way, and you'll see ever-more realistic portrayals of graphic, gratuitous human violence in movies and television like <i>The Adventures Of Robin Hood</i>, <i>Pearl harbor</i>, and Fox Television's <i>24</i>. Then turn the other and observe the exponential explosion of recording media and High Definition video rendering potential driven by technology. Put two and two together, and you've got quite a mess brewing.</p><p> <b>Welcome to the Slippery Slope</b> </p><p>Within the next 10-20 years, your virtual victims in <i>Survivor, Gaza Strip</i> could look, sound, and behave exactly like a real human would if you stabbed him in the neck or shot him in the gut. There'd be plenty of blood, screaming, and carnage to go around. You could watch in High Definition COlor as they bleed to death in agony.</p><p>The funny thing is -- and I'm just guessing -- you wouldn't want to do that in real life to a real human, so why would you want to watch in video? The violent scenario above seems silly now, but the stunningly realistic, color-era violent video we watch today would have seemed unthinkably graphic just fifteen years ago.</p><p>At the moment, we rationalize our simulated violence with statements like: "It's just a movie, it's just television. It's not real. The people don't suffer." All this is true (at the moment); but as the experience of virtual murder becomes ever more realistic, I believe that we as watchers will begin to suffer emotionally every time we view realistic suffering to any virtual person, just as if we caused suffering to real living creatures.</p><p>With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.</p><p>As movie and TC fans, we've already begun desensitizing ourselves to simulated murder, or else we wouldn't be able to watch the violent video we have now. Video featuring endless violence is nearly as old as video movies themselves, with heavyweight title prizefight between Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey (1899) probably being the most influential. Back in 1998, <i>Saving Private Ryan</i> was the most graphically realistic simulation of murder you could find in video. It shocked people (including the author) at first.</p><p>But as the body count racked up, each death became easier to watch until we no longer had a second thought about it. The same desensitizing effect stretches back to every violent video that pushed the limits of realism -- all the way back the early horror flick <i>The Texas Chain Saw Massacre </i>, where a psycho mowed down people "gremlins" with a chain s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I used to laugh at the term " murder simulator " when it was bandied about by knee-jerk opponents of video violence some years ago .
Preposterous , I said : video is video -- easily distinguishable from reality , and reasonable people know the difference between fantasy and reality .
That was in the Gunsmoke Night Of The Living Dead , where the violence seemed cartoonish in black&amp;white .
And I love those movies and TV showsThen I watched The Adventures Of Robin Hood .
The blood was in color , and it was red .
For the first time , hell started to freeze over , and I found myself beginning to understand the critics ' point of view .
As videos inched ever closer to absolute photorealism ( which some industry professionals believe to be no more than 10-15 years away ) , violent video critics ' arguments are slowly beginning to look more sane .
And yes , you 're reading this from a life-long video fan who staunchly opposes institutional artistic censorship.But censorship is peanuts compared to the conundrums we 'll be facing in the future with our favorite hobby .
Once our video of the real world ( still called , somewhat quaintly , " movies and television " ) begin to effectively duplicate reality , the issue of video violence wo n't be a matter of artistic merit or censorship anymore .
It will quickly become a matter of morality , ethics , and law.The coming storm is inevitable : turn one way , and you 'll see ever-more realistic portrayals of graphic , gratuitous human violence in movies and television like The Adventures Of Robin Hood , Pearl harbor , and Fox Television 's 24 .
Then turn the other and observe the exponential explosion of recording media and High Definition video rendering potential driven by technology .
Put two and two together , and you 've got quite a mess brewing .
Welcome to the Slippery Slope Within the next 10-20 years , your virtual victims in Survivor , Gaza Strip could look , sound , and behave exactly like a real human would if you stabbed him in the neck or shot him in the gut .
There 'd be plenty of blood , screaming , and carnage to go around .
You could watch in High Definition COlor as they bleed to death in agony.The funny thing is -- and I 'm just guessing -- you would n't want to do that in real life to a real human , so why would you want to watch in video ?
The violent scenario above seems silly now , but the stunningly realistic , color-era violent video we watch today would have seemed unthinkably graphic just fifteen years ago.At the moment , we rationalize our simulated violence with statements like : " It 's just a movie , it 's just television .
It 's not real .
The people do n't suffer .
" All this is true ( at the moment ) ; but as the experience of virtual murder becomes ever more realistic , I believe that we as watchers will begin to suffer emotionally every time we view realistic suffering to any virtual person , just as if we caused suffering to real living creatures.With each act of violence , a piece of us grows cold , calloused , and uncaring towards the well being of others .
Repeat that , and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.As movie and TC fans , we 've already begun desensitizing ourselves to simulated murder , or else we would n't be able to watch the violent video we have now .
Video featuring endless violence is nearly as old as video movies themselves , with heavyweight title prizefight between Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey ( 1899 ) probably being the most influential .
Back in 1998 , Saving Private Ryan was the most graphically realistic simulation of murder you could find in video .
It shocked people ( including the author ) at first.But as the body count racked up , each death became easier to watch until we no longer had a second thought about it .
The same desensitizing effect stretches back to every violent video that pushed the limits of realism -- all the way back the early horror flick The Texas Chain Saw Massacre , where a psycho mowed down people " gremlins " with a chain s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I used to laugh at the term "murder simulator" when it was bandied about by knee-jerk opponents of video violence some years ago.
Preposterous, I said: video is video -- easily distinguishable from reality, and reasonable people know the difference between fantasy and reality.
That was in the Gunsmoke Night Of The Living Dead, where the violence seemed cartoonish in black&amp;white.
And I love those movies and TV showsThen I watched The Adventures Of Robin Hood.
The blood was in color, and it was red.
For the first time, hell started to freeze over, and I found myself beginning to understand the critics' point of view.
As videos inched ever closer to absolute photorealism (which some industry professionals believe to be no more than 10-15 years away), violent video critics' arguments are slowly beginning to look more sane.
And yes, you're reading this from a life-long video fan who staunchly opposes institutional artistic censorship.But censorship is peanuts compared to the conundrums we'll be facing in the future with our favorite hobby.
Once our video of the real world (still called, somewhat quaintly, "movies and television") begin to effectively duplicate reality, the issue of video violence won't be a matter of artistic merit or censorship anymore.
It will quickly become a matter of morality, ethics, and law.The coming storm is inevitable: turn one way, and you'll see ever-more realistic portrayals of graphic, gratuitous human violence in movies and television like The Adventures Of Robin Hood, Pearl harbor, and Fox Television's 24.
Then turn the other and observe the exponential explosion of recording media and High Definition video rendering potential driven by technology.
Put two and two together, and you've got quite a mess brewing.
Welcome to the Slippery Slope Within the next 10-20 years, your virtual victims in Survivor, Gaza Strip could look, sound, and behave exactly like a real human would if you stabbed him in the neck or shot him in the gut.
There'd be plenty of blood, screaming, and carnage to go around.
You could watch in High Definition COlor as they bleed to death in agony.The funny thing is -- and I'm just guessing -- you wouldn't want to do that in real life to a real human, so why would you want to watch in video?
The violent scenario above seems silly now, but the stunningly realistic, color-era violent video we watch today would have seemed unthinkably graphic just fifteen years ago.At the moment, we rationalize our simulated violence with statements like: "It's just a movie, it's just television.
It's not real.
The people don't suffer.
" All this is true (at the moment); but as the experience of virtual murder becomes ever more realistic, I believe that we as watchers will begin to suffer emotionally every time we view realistic suffering to any virtual person, just as if we caused suffering to real living creatures.With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others.
Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.As movie and TC fans, we've already begun desensitizing ourselves to simulated murder, or else we wouldn't be able to watch the violent video we have now.
Video featuring endless violence is nearly as old as video movies themselves, with heavyweight title prizefight between Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey (1899) probably being the most influential.
Back in 1998, Saving Private Ryan was the most graphically realistic simulation of murder you could find in video.
It shocked people (including the author) at first.But as the body count racked up, each death became easier to watch until we no longer had a second thought about it.
The same desensitizing effect stretches back to every violent video that pushed the limits of realism -- all the way back the early horror flick The Texas Chain Saw Massacre , where a psycho mowed down people "gremlins" with a chain s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539573</id>
	<title>Hah.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, for one, welcome our new murder loving grandchildren.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , welcome our new murder loving grandchildren .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, welcome our new murder loving grandchildren.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539017</id>
	<title>Schoolyard violence?</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1246388460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And violence on the playground?  I draw the line at cops and robbers, man.  Murder simulation right there.  I couldn't stomach one kid lying down pretending to be dead.  Hell, I threw up when my friend made an over-the-top death gargling noise.  Shit's unreal, man, surely our Congressional Overlords must step in with sweet blessings from Barack Obama.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And violence on the playground ?
I draw the line at cops and robbers , man .
Murder simulation right there .
I could n't stomach one kid lying down pretending to be dead .
Hell , I threw up when my friend made an over-the-top death gargling noise .
Shit 's unreal , man , surely our Congressional Overlords must step in with sweet blessings from Barack Obama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And violence on the playground?
I draw the line at cops and robbers, man.
Murder simulation right there.
I couldn't stomach one kid lying down pretending to be dead.
Hell, I threw up when my friend made an over-the-top death gargling noise.
Shit's unreal, man, surely our Congressional Overlords must step in with sweet blessings from Barack Obama.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539677</id>
	<title>This is a non-story, because...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246439940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...the rule is clear:<br>1. Everything is allowed.<br>2. Except if it hurts someone.<br>3. What hurts, is relative, and defined differently for everyone.<br>4. To work as a team/society, you, in advance, agree upon a set of rules for what is defined as hurting someone. This is called the "law".</p><p>So the descision about "virtual murder" is also clear:<br>Absolutely nobody gets hurt by it. There is no link between killing in games and killing in real life.<br>Statistically, you could even say, that there is a link between killing in games, and <em>not</em> killing in real life.<br>(<a href="http://11k2.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/killerspielegefahr-nachgerechnet-mit-offiziellen-zahlen/" title="wordpress.com">In Germany, there is roughly a likeliness of 1 in 32 <em>million</em> of a player of such a game going on a killing spree</a> [wordpress.com] (German Blog.) It's not much different elsewhere.)<br>So one could build on that, and argue that those who want to stop those games, want more killings to happen.<br>But I will not. ^^ I'm just saying...</p><p>What I'm asking myself now, is what advantage anyone could gain from banning those games? The votes of badly informed people? Or is it, because that person is badly informed itself?<br>The only one who got hurt by the sale of the games, is the music industry. I'm not kidding you. Here is the chart: <a href="http://11k2.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/090612games-music-dvds.png" title="wordpress.com">http://11k2.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/090612games-music-dvds.png</a> [wordpress.com]<br>People just don't have the money for both.</p><p>Now I could of course wildly speculate about a link...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>But I think I will not go down to that level. I leave that to others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the rule is clear : 1 .
Everything is allowed.2 .
Except if it hurts someone.3 .
What hurts , is relative , and defined differently for everyone.4 .
To work as a team/society , you , in advance , agree upon a set of rules for what is defined as hurting someone .
This is called the " law " .So the descision about " virtual murder " is also clear : Absolutely nobody gets hurt by it .
There is no link between killing in games and killing in real life.Statistically , you could even say , that there is a link between killing in games , and not killing in real life .
( In Germany , there is roughly a likeliness of 1 in 32 million of a player of such a game going on a killing spree [ wordpress.com ] ( German Blog .
) It 's not much different elsewhere .
) So one could build on that , and argue that those who want to stop those games , want more killings to happen.But I will not .
^ ^ I 'm just saying...What I 'm asking myself now , is what advantage anyone could gain from banning those games ?
The votes of badly informed people ?
Or is it , because that person is badly informed itself ? The only one who got hurt by the sale of the games , is the music industry .
I 'm not kidding you .
Here is the chart : http : //11k2.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/090612games-music-dvds.png [ wordpress.com ] People just do n't have the money for both.Now I could of course wildly speculate about a link... ; ) But I think I will not go down to that level .
I leave that to others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the rule is clear:1.
Everything is allowed.2.
Except if it hurts someone.3.
What hurts, is relative, and defined differently for everyone.4.
To work as a team/society, you, in advance, agree upon a set of rules for what is defined as hurting someone.
This is called the "law".So the descision about "virtual murder" is also clear:Absolutely nobody gets hurt by it.
There is no link between killing in games and killing in real life.Statistically, you could even say, that there is a link between killing in games, and not killing in real life.
(In Germany, there is roughly a likeliness of 1 in 32 million of a player of such a game going on a killing spree [wordpress.com] (German Blog.
) It's not much different elsewhere.
)So one could build on that, and argue that those who want to stop those games, want more killings to happen.But I will not.
^^ I'm just saying...What I'm asking myself now, is what advantage anyone could gain from banning those games?
The votes of badly informed people?
Or is it, because that person is badly informed itself?The only one who got hurt by the sale of the games, is the music industry.
I'm not kidding you.
Here is the chart: http://11k2.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/090612games-music-dvds.png [wordpress.com]People just don't have the money for both.Now I could of course wildly speculate about a link... ;)But I think I will not go down to that level.
I leave that to others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540661</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>fastest fascist</author>
	<datestamp>1246453320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In World War II, the Japanese would make some of their young, unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death. Their friends would cheer them on. Afterwards, all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they've had in months, sake, and to so-called "comfort girls." The result? They learned to associate violence with pleasure.</p></div><p>There is another explanation for how this would work that isn't about conditioning. The soldier has an inner conflict: murder is reprehensible but his peers and the authorities around him encourage him to commit it. Having commited murder, the soldier has chosen to bend his morals in favour of group loyalty. By accepting a reward for murder, the soldier accepts the act again, deepening their commitment. Now the conflict is not only between the soldier's inner morals and external pressure, but also between his repulsion for murder and the fact that obviously he himself holds other values in higher esteem still, since he already did kill someone, with the extra guilt of having profited from the act providing further pressure. Many will eventually conclude, consciously or not, that what they did was the right thing to do, and will do it again if ordered to, because to refuse at any point would be to accept guilt over all the things they have already done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In World War II , the Japanese would make some of their young , unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death .
Their friends would cheer them on .
Afterwards , all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they 've had in months , sake , and to so-called " comfort girls .
" The result ?
They learned to associate violence with pleasure.There is another explanation for how this would work that is n't about conditioning .
The soldier has an inner conflict : murder is reprehensible but his peers and the authorities around him encourage him to commit it .
Having commited murder , the soldier has chosen to bend his morals in favour of group loyalty .
By accepting a reward for murder , the soldier accepts the act again , deepening their commitment .
Now the conflict is not only between the soldier 's inner morals and external pressure , but also between his repulsion for murder and the fact that obviously he himself holds other values in higher esteem still , since he already did kill someone , with the extra guilt of having profited from the act providing further pressure .
Many will eventually conclude , consciously or not , that what they did was the right thing to do , and will do it again if ordered to , because to refuse at any point would be to accept guilt over all the things they have already done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In World War II, the Japanese would make some of their young, unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death.
Their friends would cheer them on.
Afterwards, all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they've had in months, sake, and to so-called "comfort girls.
" The result?
They learned to associate violence with pleasure.There is another explanation for how this would work that isn't about conditioning.
The soldier has an inner conflict: murder is reprehensible but his peers and the authorities around him encourage him to commit it.
Having commited murder, the soldier has chosen to bend his morals in favour of group loyalty.
By accepting a reward for murder, the soldier accepts the act again, deepening their commitment.
Now the conflict is not only between the soldier's inner morals and external pressure, but also between his repulsion for murder and the fact that obviously he himself holds other values in higher esteem still, since he already did kill someone, with the extra guilt of having profited from the act providing further pressure.
Many will eventually conclude, consciously or not, that what they did was the right thing to do, and will do it again if ordered to, because to refuse at any point would be to accept guilt over all the things they have already done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541937</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>pbot</author>
	<datestamp>1246461600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hilarious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hilarious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hilarious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</id>
	<title>Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read this by Dave Grossman <a href="http://www.killology.com/print/print\_teachkid.htm" title="killology.com">http://www.killology.com/print/print\_teachkid.htm</a> [killology.com]<br>It's about teaching kids to kill. I'm sure there are many anecdotes out there about how "I played games for years and I haven't killed anyone" but the man has a point...</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>Some quotes from the text: </p><p>"Healthy members of most species have a powerful, natural resistance to killing their own kind. Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads. Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore. Piranha turn their fangs on everything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail. Rattlesnakes bite anything, but they wrestle one another.</p><p>When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear our thought processes become very primitive, and we slam head on into that hardwired resistance against killing. During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier (Marshall, 1998). [...]</p><p>That's the reality of the battlefield. Only a small percentage of soldiers are willing and able to kill. When the military became aware of this, they systematically went about the process of &#226;oefixing&#226; this &#226;oeproblem.&#226; And fix it they did. By Vietnam the firing rate rose to over 90 percent (Grossman, 1999a).</p><p>[...]</p><p>
&nbsp; The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.</p><p>Brutalization, or &#226;oevalues inculcation,&#226; is what happens at boot camp. Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked, and dressed alike, losing all vestiges of individuality. You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment. In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.</p><p>Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media. [...]</p><p>Classical conditioning is like Pavlov's dog in Psych 101. Remember the ringing bell, the food, and the dog could not hear the bell without salivating?</p><p>In World War II, the Japanese would make some of their young, unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death. Their friends would cheer them on. Afterwards, all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they've had in months, sake, and to so-called "comfort girls." The result? They learned to associate violence with pleasure.</p><p>This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training, but the media is doing it to our children. Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume (Grossman &amp; DeGaetano, 1999).<br>[...]<br>The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a powerful procedure of stimulus-response training. We see this with pilots in flight simulators, or children in fire drills. When the fire alarm is set off, the children learn to file out in orderly fashion. One day there's a real fire and they're frightened out of their little wits, but they do exactly what they've been conditioned to do (Grossman &amp; DeGaetano, 1999).</p><p>In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets, but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes. Now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop up in their field of view. That's the stimulus. The conditioned response is to shoot the target and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, repeated hundreds of times."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this by Dave Grossman http : //www.killology.com/print/print \ _teachkid.htm [ killology.com ] It 's about teaching kids to kill .
I 'm sure there are many anecdotes out there about how " I played games for years and I have n't killed anyone " but the man has a point.. .   Some quotes from the text : " Healthy members of most species have a powerful , natural resistance to killing their own kind .
Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads .
Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore .
Piranha turn their fangs on everything , but they fight one another with flicks of the tail .
Rattlesnakes bite anything , but they wrestle one another.When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear our thought processes become very primitive , and we slam head on into that hardwired resistance against killing .
During World War II , we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier ( Marshall , 1998 ) .
[ ... ] That 's the reality of the battlefield .
Only a small percentage of soldiers are willing and able to kill .
When the military became aware of this , they systematically went about the process of   oefixing   this   oeproblem.   And fix it they did .
By Vietnam the firing rate rose to over 90 percent ( Grossman , 1999a ) . [ .. .
]   The training methods the military uses are brutalization , classical conditioning , operant conditioning , and role modeling .
Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children , but without the safeguards.Brutalization , or   oevalues inculcation ,   is what happens at boot camp .
Your head is shaved , you are herded together naked , and dressed alike , losing all vestiges of individuality .
You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment .
In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media .
[ ... ] Classical conditioning is like Pavlov 's dog in Psych 101 .
Remember the ringing bell , the food , and the dog could not hear the bell without salivating ? In World War II , the Japanese would make some of their young , unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death .
Their friends would cheer them on .
Afterwards , all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they 've had in months , sake , and to so-called " comfort girls .
" The result ?
They learned to associate violence with pleasure.This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training , but the media is doing it to our children .
Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with : laughter , cheers , popcorn , soda , and their girlfriend 's perfume ( Grossman &amp; DeGaetano , 1999 ) . [ .. .
] The third method the military uses is operant conditioning , a powerful procedure of stimulus-response training .
We see this with pilots in flight simulators , or children in fire drills .
When the fire alarm is set off , the children learn to file out in orderly fashion .
One day there 's a real fire and they 're frightened out of their little wits , but they do exactly what they 've been conditioned to do ( Grossman &amp; DeGaetano , 1999 ) .In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets , but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes .
Now soldiers learn to fire at realistic , man-shaped silhouettes that pop up in their field of view .
That 's the stimulus .
The conditioned response is to shoot the target and then it drops .
Stimulus-response , stimulus-response , repeated hundreds of times .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read this by Dave Grossman http://www.killology.com/print/print\_teachkid.htm [killology.com]It's about teaching kids to kill.
I'm sure there are many anecdotes out there about how "I played games for years and I haven't killed anyone" but the man has a point...
  Some quotes from the text: "Healthy members of most species have a powerful, natural resistance to killing their own kind.
Animals with antlers and horns fight one another by butting heads.
Against other species they go to the side to gut and gore.
Piranha turn their fangs on everything, but they fight one another with flicks of the tail.
Rattlesnakes bite anything, but they wrestle one another.When we human beings are overwhelmed with anger and fear our thought processes become very primitive, and we slam head on into that hardwired resistance against killing.
During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier (Marshall, 1998).
[...]That's the reality of the battlefield.
Only a small percentage of soldiers are willing and able to kill.
When the military became aware of this, they systematically went about the process of âoefixingâ this âoeproblem.â And fix it they did.
By Vietnam the firing rate rose to over 90 percent (Grossman, 1999a).[...
]
  The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling.
Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.Brutalization, or âoevalues inculcation,â is what happens at boot camp.
Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked, and dressed alike, losing all vestiges of individuality.
You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment.
In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media.
[...]Classical conditioning is like Pavlov's dog in Psych 101.
Remember the ringing bell, the food, and the dog could not hear the bell without salivating?In World War II, the Japanese would make some of their young, unblooded soldiers bayonet innocent prisoners to death.
Their friends would cheer them on.
Afterwards, all these soldiers were treated to the best meal they've had in months, sake, and to so-called "comfort girls.
" The result?
They learned to associate violence with pleasure.This technique is so morally reprehensible that there are very few examples of it in modern U.S. military training, but the media is doing it to our children.
Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume (Grossman &amp; DeGaetano, 1999).[...
]The third method the military uses is operant conditioning, a powerful procedure of stimulus-response training.
We see this with pilots in flight simulators, or children in fire drills.
When the fire alarm is set off, the children learn to file out in orderly fashion.
One day there's a real fire and they're frightened out of their little wits, but they do exactly what they've been conditioned to do (Grossman &amp; DeGaetano, 1999).In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets, but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes.
Now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop up in their field of view.
That's the stimulus.
The conditioned response is to shoot the target and then it drops.
Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, repeated hundreds of times.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540655</id>
	<title>Gamers becoming murderers isn't the point</title>
	<author>kylebarbour</author>
	<datestamp>1246453260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TFA says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Show BioShock to a non-gamer -- someone who hasn't been desensitized to killing virtual people -- and watch their reaction. Show them how you bludgeon people to death with a pipe wrench. If they don't wince and express some form of shock at what's taking place on the screen, they're either seriously disturbed or they're a seasoned gamer.</p></div><p>This is incredibly true, and is exactly the thing that makes me resistant to gamers saying that video game violence is totally normal and acceptable and that people who are opposed to it have something wrong with them.</p><p>I recently was exposed to Gears of War for the first time, and the violence and hatred in that game was so horrific to me that I wanted to vomit. I was incredibly, incredibly troubled by it. And it wasn't just the brutality, the incredible realism of the violence, the curbstomping, but also the attitudes of the players online. People were not laughing and sharing something positive over the in-game chat, nor were the players in the house laughing and working together - they were expressing violent, hateful feelings.</p><p>Now, whether this is acceptable in the sense of free speech is one thing, and I think it is. But there's another question to me: is this the right thing? Is this healthy? If it's true that to non-gamers that the games being playing induce feeling of sickness, pain, and emotional trauma, which personal experience can attest that they do, then I don't believe it's reasonable to dismiss the concerns of the non-gaming population.</p><p>It is like free speech. Exercising your right to say whatever you please is not a good idea, even though it's legal to be constantly hurtful and hate-filled (and should be).</p><p>Again - I'm not arguing that gamers will kill people, or that these games should be banned. I'm arguing that there's definitely something to the belief that playing these games is not psychologically healthy.</p><p>Flame away, Slashdot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA says : Show BioShock to a non-gamer -- someone who has n't been desensitized to killing virtual people -- and watch their reaction .
Show them how you bludgeon people to death with a pipe wrench .
If they do n't wince and express some form of shock at what 's taking place on the screen , they 're either seriously disturbed or they 're a seasoned gamer.This is incredibly true , and is exactly the thing that makes me resistant to gamers saying that video game violence is totally normal and acceptable and that people who are opposed to it have something wrong with them.I recently was exposed to Gears of War for the first time , and the violence and hatred in that game was so horrific to me that I wanted to vomit .
I was incredibly , incredibly troubled by it .
And it was n't just the brutality , the incredible realism of the violence , the curbstomping , but also the attitudes of the players online .
People were not laughing and sharing something positive over the in-game chat , nor were the players in the house laughing and working together - they were expressing violent , hateful feelings.Now , whether this is acceptable in the sense of free speech is one thing , and I think it is .
But there 's another question to me : is this the right thing ?
Is this healthy ?
If it 's true that to non-gamers that the games being playing induce feeling of sickness , pain , and emotional trauma , which personal experience can attest that they do , then I do n't believe it 's reasonable to dismiss the concerns of the non-gaming population.It is like free speech .
Exercising your right to say whatever you please is not a good idea , even though it 's legal to be constantly hurtful and hate-filled ( and should be ) .Again - I 'm not arguing that gamers will kill people , or that these games should be banned .
I 'm arguing that there 's definitely something to the belief that playing these games is not psychologically healthy.Flame away , Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA says:Show BioShock to a non-gamer -- someone who hasn't been desensitized to killing virtual people -- and watch their reaction.
Show them how you bludgeon people to death with a pipe wrench.
If they don't wince and express some form of shock at what's taking place on the screen, they're either seriously disturbed or they're a seasoned gamer.This is incredibly true, and is exactly the thing that makes me resistant to gamers saying that video game violence is totally normal and acceptable and that people who are opposed to it have something wrong with them.I recently was exposed to Gears of War for the first time, and the violence and hatred in that game was so horrific to me that I wanted to vomit.
I was incredibly, incredibly troubled by it.
And it wasn't just the brutality, the incredible realism of the violence, the curbstomping, but also the attitudes of the players online.
People were not laughing and sharing something positive over the in-game chat, nor were the players in the house laughing and working together - they were expressing violent, hateful feelings.Now, whether this is acceptable in the sense of free speech is one thing, and I think it is.
But there's another question to me: is this the right thing?
Is this healthy?
If it's true that to non-gamers that the games being playing induce feeling of sickness, pain, and emotional trauma, which personal experience can attest that they do, then I don't believe it's reasonable to dismiss the concerns of the non-gaming population.It is like free speech.
Exercising your right to say whatever you please is not a good idea, even though it's legal to be constantly hurtful and hate-filled (and should be).Again - I'm not arguing that gamers will kill people, or that these games should be banned.
I'm arguing that there's definitely something to the belief that playing these games is not psychologically healthy.Flame away, Slashdot.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539155</id>
	<title>Re:Virtual murder isn't and cannot be murder.</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1246389900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to be pedantic and legalistic, you might want to try proofreading your post before hitting the "Submit" button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to be pedantic and legalistic , you might want to try proofreading your post before hitting the " Submit " button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to be pedantic and legalistic, you might want to try proofreading your post before hitting the "Submit" button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543637</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>bigbigbison</author>
	<datestamp>1246467840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've read the book and it is pretty much a load of crap.
Grossman was in the military and that may give him the background to talk about the military but he does nothing to prove that there is any connection between the military and videogames.  <br> <br>The military does use computer generated scenarios but from what I've read and seen they use these "videogames" to teach teamwork and tactics not to encourage people to kill.<br> <br>If there were any correlation between playing videogames and violence the statistics on youth violence should be going up but they aren't.<br> <br>Grossman makes a lot about the military's training techniques.  The military also forces you to make your bed.  That's why I never make mine: I'm afraid that if I do what the military does I'll go crazy and start killing people.<br> <br>If the military techniques are so good at making people into killers why aren't there tons of ex-military murderers? <br> <br>If Grossman's thesis that we are "teaching our kids to kill," which I don't believe since holding a controller or mouse and keyboard isn't very much like using a gun, teaching them how to kill is not the same as making them want to kill.  I was taught how to diagram sentences but I don't ever get the urge to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've read the book and it is pretty much a load of crap .
Grossman was in the military and that may give him the background to talk about the military but he does nothing to prove that there is any connection between the military and videogames .
The military does use computer generated scenarios but from what I 've read and seen they use these " videogames " to teach teamwork and tactics not to encourage people to kill .
If there were any correlation between playing videogames and violence the statistics on youth violence should be going up but they are n't .
Grossman makes a lot about the military 's training techniques .
The military also forces you to make your bed .
That 's why I never make mine : I 'm afraid that if I do what the military does I 'll go crazy and start killing people .
If the military techniques are so good at making people into killers why are n't there tons of ex-military murderers ?
If Grossman 's thesis that we are " teaching our kids to kill , " which I do n't believe since holding a controller or mouse and keyboard is n't very much like using a gun , teaching them how to kill is not the same as making them want to kill .
I was taught how to diagram sentences but I do n't ever get the urge to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've read the book and it is pretty much a load of crap.
Grossman was in the military and that may give him the background to talk about the military but he does nothing to prove that there is any connection between the military and videogames.
The military does use computer generated scenarios but from what I've read and seen they use these "videogames" to teach teamwork and tactics not to encourage people to kill.
If there were any correlation between playing videogames and violence the statistics on youth violence should be going up but they aren't.
Grossman makes a lot about the military's training techniques.
The military also forces you to make your bed.
That's why I never make mine: I'm afraid that if I do what the military does I'll go crazy and start killing people.
If the military techniques are so good at making people into killers why aren't there tons of ex-military murderers?
If Grossman's thesis that we are "teaching our kids to kill," which I don't believe since holding a controller or mouse and keyboard isn't very much like using a gun, teaching them how to kill is not the same as making them want to kill.
I was taught how to diagram sentences but I don't ever get the urge to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539569</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246438860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS.</p><p>"During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier"</p><p>Some dude with a gun is charging at you?  You pull the fucking trigger.  End of story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS .
" During World War II , we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier " Some dude with a gun is charging at you ?
You pull the fucking trigger .
End of story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS.
"During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier"Some dude with a gun is charging at you?
You pull the fucking trigger.
End of story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542341</id>
	<title>Two very important references for this discussion:</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1246463160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1)The movie Brainscan, if you haven't seen it you should. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109327/" title="imdb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109327/</a> [imdb.com]<br>2)The game Hitman. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman\_(series)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman\_(series)</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The movie Brainscan , if you have n't seen it you should .
http : //www.imdb.com/title/tt0109327/ [ imdb.com ] 2 ) The game Hitman .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman \ _ ( series ) [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1)The movie Brainscan, if you haven't seen it you should.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109327/ [imdb.com]2)The game Hitman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitman\_(series) [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539213</id>
	<title>The violent VHS generation</title>
	<author>denoir</author>
	<datestamp>1246390560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the early 80's when VHS became popular there was a strong movement in Sweden for banning all video imports. The reason cited was that the children would become hooligans at best and mass murderers at worst if they were to exposed to so much violence. Until the early 90's, there were no private TV channels in Sweden. There were two state owned and controlled channels that were very proactive in censoring violence. Movies in theaters were heavily censored as well.<br><br>In a way the fear of video was more justified than the fear of video games - there was no prior data on how people react in general when exposed to displays of graphic violence on a regular basis. As it turns out, photorealistic video did not make mass murderers out of the population, so there is really no reason why we should expect the video game generation to be any more violent than the VHS generation.<br><br>The video ban in Sweden? It was never introduced, but not for a lack of trying. The reason why it was scrapped was because a ban would have violated some trade agreements. It is a rather remarkable human trait - the desire to stop *other* people from doing something they like. Note that it's always stopping others for their own good. You'll never find somebody saying: Please pass this ban so that I'll stop doing that thing that I know I shouldn't be doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the early 80 's when VHS became popular there was a strong movement in Sweden for banning all video imports .
The reason cited was that the children would become hooligans at best and mass murderers at worst if they were to exposed to so much violence .
Until the early 90 's , there were no private TV channels in Sweden .
There were two state owned and controlled channels that were very proactive in censoring violence .
Movies in theaters were heavily censored as well.In a way the fear of video was more justified than the fear of video games - there was no prior data on how people react in general when exposed to displays of graphic violence on a regular basis .
As it turns out , photorealistic video did not make mass murderers out of the population , so there is really no reason why we should expect the video game generation to be any more violent than the VHS generation.The video ban in Sweden ?
It was never introduced , but not for a lack of trying .
The reason why it was scrapped was because a ban would have violated some trade agreements .
It is a rather remarkable human trait - the desire to stop * other * people from doing something they like .
Note that it 's always stopping others for their own good .
You 'll never find somebody saying : Please pass this ban so that I 'll stop doing that thing that I know I should n't be doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the early 80's when VHS became popular there was a strong movement in Sweden for banning all video imports.
The reason cited was that the children would become hooligans at best and mass murderers at worst if they were to exposed to so much violence.
Until the early 90's, there were no private TV channels in Sweden.
There were two state owned and controlled channels that were very proactive in censoring violence.
Movies in theaters were heavily censored as well.In a way the fear of video was more justified than the fear of video games - there was no prior data on how people react in general when exposed to displays of graphic violence on a regular basis.
As it turns out, photorealistic video did not make mass murderers out of the population, so there is really no reason why we should expect the video game generation to be any more violent than the VHS generation.The video ban in Sweden?
It was never introduced, but not for a lack of trying.
The reason why it was scrapped was because a ban would have violated some trade agreements.
It is a rather remarkable human trait - the desire to stop *other* people from doing something they like.
Note that it's always stopping others for their own good.
You'll never find somebody saying: Please pass this ban so that I'll stop doing that thing that I know I shouldn't be doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539745</id>
	<title>Re:Played for along time</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1246440840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or form</p></div><p>Right, that's why the pixels are arranged in the shape of humans when you kill them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or formRight , that 's why the pixels are arranged in the shape of humans when you kill them : -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or formRight, that's why the pixels are arranged in the shape of humans when you kill them :-P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542467</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>kthejoker</author>
	<datestamp>1246463760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a college admissions essay, this is pretty great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a college admissions essay , this is pretty great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a college admissions essay, this is pretty great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540635</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Dravik</author>
	<datestamp>1246452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having been through basic training,  it isn't particularly brutal.  The day are long and exhausting, the instructor is a jackass, but brutal is a very poor description.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been through basic training , it is n't particularly brutal .
The day are long and exhausting , the instructor is a jackass , but brutal is a very poor description .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been through basic training,  it isn't particularly brutal.
The day are long and exhausting, the instructor is a jackass, but brutal is a very poor description.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28545141</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1246472220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And again, I must refer to this:</p><p><a href="http://pages.slc.edu/~fsmoler/grossman.html" title="slc.edu">Grossman-ism: Media Violence and Mad Social Science</a> [slc.edu]</p><p>What we have here is a quasi-religious belief in the goodness of Man.  Something not born out by human behavior for as long as there have been humans.</p><p>None of it is based on real science, and it has what for most of it's adherants is a non-falsifiable premise, no matter how many Sparticani the Romans crucified, how many babies sacrificed to Dagon, or how many hearts were given to the Aztec gods.</p><blockquote><div><p> <em><br>
&nbsp; The Good News is the attractive and inspiriting proposition that most people have a powerful instinctual disinclination to kill other human beings, and under normal conditions, including their own presence on a battlefield in immediate proximity to homicidal strangers, will refuse to do so.  The Bad News is that modern media culture produces an abnormal condition in which ordinary children are all too likely to become much more effective killers than, say, a typical American GI facing the SS in Normandy.  And Col. Grossman is supremely confident that he can prove both of these contentions.  His attempts to do so, in these two fantastic and extremely dispiriting parodies of rational argument, are fascinating illustrations of the intellectual level of much contemporary American social science.<br></em></p></div></blockquote><p>I wouldn't care, but the whole point of all these mental gymnastics is to remove First Amendment protections from video games, as Frederick Wertham did to comic books for many years.  And the author of the article sites as his "realistic, murder simulator" <i>Bioshock</i>.  Seriously, <i>Bioshock</i>.</p><p>I might have more respect if they were talking about realistic war simulations... ok, who am I kidding, no I wouldn't.  But <i>Bioshock</i>?  Seriously?  They game where you have magic powers and the enemies all look like freakshow rejects?  That game?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And again , I must refer to this : Grossman-ism : Media Violence and Mad Social Science [ slc.edu ] What we have here is a quasi-religious belief in the goodness of Man .
Something not born out by human behavior for as long as there have been humans.None of it is based on real science , and it has what for most of it 's adherants is a non-falsifiable premise , no matter how many Sparticani the Romans crucified , how many babies sacrificed to Dagon , or how many hearts were given to the Aztec gods .
  The Good News is the attractive and inspiriting proposition that most people have a powerful instinctual disinclination to kill other human beings , and under normal conditions , including their own presence on a battlefield in immediate proximity to homicidal strangers , will refuse to do so .
The Bad News is that modern media culture produces an abnormal condition in which ordinary children are all too likely to become much more effective killers than , say , a typical American GI facing the SS in Normandy .
And Col. Grossman is supremely confident that he can prove both of these contentions .
His attempts to do so , in these two fantastic and extremely dispiriting parodies of rational argument , are fascinating illustrations of the intellectual level of much contemporary American social science.I would n't care , but the whole point of all these mental gymnastics is to remove First Amendment protections from video games , as Frederick Wertham did to comic books for many years .
And the author of the article sites as his " realistic , murder simulator " Bioshock .
Seriously , Bioshock.I might have more respect if they were talking about realistic war simulations... ok , who am I kidding , no I would n't .
But Bioshock ?
Seriously ? They game where you have magic powers and the enemies all look like freakshow rejects ?
That game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And again, I must refer to this:Grossman-ism: Media Violence and Mad Social Science [slc.edu]What we have here is a quasi-religious belief in the goodness of Man.
Something not born out by human behavior for as long as there have been humans.None of it is based on real science, and it has what for most of it's adherants is a non-falsifiable premise, no matter how many Sparticani the Romans crucified, how many babies sacrificed to Dagon, or how many hearts were given to the Aztec gods.
  The Good News is the attractive and inspiriting proposition that most people have a powerful instinctual disinclination to kill other human beings, and under normal conditions, including their own presence on a battlefield in immediate proximity to homicidal strangers, will refuse to do so.
The Bad News is that modern media culture produces an abnormal condition in which ordinary children are all too likely to become much more effective killers than, say, a typical American GI facing the SS in Normandy.
And Col. Grossman is supremely confident that he can prove both of these contentions.
His attempts to do so, in these two fantastic and extremely dispiriting parodies of rational argument, are fascinating illustrations of the intellectual level of much contemporary American social science.I wouldn't care, but the whole point of all these mental gymnastics is to remove First Amendment protections from video games, as Frederick Wertham did to comic books for many years.
And the author of the article sites as his "realistic, murder simulator" Bioshock.
Seriously, Bioshock.I might have more respect if they were talking about realistic war simulations... ok, who am I kidding, no I wouldn't.
But Bioshock?
Seriously?  They game where you have magic powers and the enemies all look like freakshow rejects?
That game?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540449</id>
	<title>violence is stimulation</title>
	<author>serano</author>
	<datestamp>1246450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think video games (and movies) have violence because it is an easy mechanism for engaging emotion and stimulating people.  We evolved as humans to respond physiologically to violence (e.g. with adrenalin), and that's easy to manipulate, probably indicating lazy or less-talented writers.</p><p>As to whether repeated exposure to violence is harmful, I think it's hard to argue that it doesn't desensitize us.  Whether that's bad or not is a judgment call.  We know that when we visualize something much of our brain reacts as if we're doing that thing.  We also know that our brain can change as we repeat activities so that something that caused one physiological reaction at one point does not cause the same reaction later.  That's desensitization to the original stimulus.</p><p>I think it's interesting that on slashdot every time this issue comes up, people who support violence in entertainment are frequently very emotional on this issue and people who are against it are shouted down and often not given much rational consideration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think video games ( and movies ) have violence because it is an easy mechanism for engaging emotion and stimulating people .
We evolved as humans to respond physiologically to violence ( e.g .
with adrenalin ) , and that 's easy to manipulate , probably indicating lazy or less-talented writers.As to whether repeated exposure to violence is harmful , I think it 's hard to argue that it does n't desensitize us .
Whether that 's bad or not is a judgment call .
We know that when we visualize something much of our brain reacts as if we 're doing that thing .
We also know that our brain can change as we repeat activities so that something that caused one physiological reaction at one point does not cause the same reaction later .
That 's desensitization to the original stimulus.I think it 's interesting that on slashdot every time this issue comes up , people who support violence in entertainment are frequently very emotional on this issue and people who are against it are shouted down and often not given much rational consideration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think video games (and movies) have violence because it is an easy mechanism for engaging emotion and stimulating people.
We evolved as humans to respond physiologically to violence (e.g.
with adrenalin), and that's easy to manipulate, probably indicating lazy or less-talented writers.As to whether repeated exposure to violence is harmful, I think it's hard to argue that it doesn't desensitize us.
Whether that's bad or not is a judgment call.
We know that when we visualize something much of our brain reacts as if we're doing that thing.
We also know that our brain can change as we repeat activities so that something that caused one physiological reaction at one point does not cause the same reaction later.
That's desensitization to the original stimulus.I think it's interesting that on slashdot every time this issue comes up, people who support violence in entertainment are frequently very emotional on this issue and people who are against it are shouted down and often not given much rational consideration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541511</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1246459320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All of these simulations have trained me well in the off chance I am ever presented with the ability to be an omnipotent, immortal, time traveling, alien, city building, world conquering, sword wielding, post apocalyptic, giant fire breathing, car jacking last great hope for humanity...who also happens to be <b>a complete and total bastard.</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Oh, so you're training to be God then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All of these simulations have trained me well in the off chance I am ever presented with the ability to be an omnipotent , immortal , time traveling , alien , city building , world conquering , sword wielding , post apocalyptic , giant fire breathing , car jacking last great hope for humanity...who also happens to be a complete and total bastard .
Oh , so you 're training to be God then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of these simulations have trained me well in the off chance I am ever presented with the ability to be an omnipotent, immortal, time traveling, alien, city building, world conquering, sword wielding, post apocalyptic, giant fire breathing, car jacking last great hope for humanity...who also happens to be a complete and total bastard.
Oh, so you're training to be God then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539571</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, please.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, but that's not realistic.</p><p>We should only take it seriously when they start falling to the floor screaming, covering themselves in fake blood, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , but that 's not realistic.We should only take it seriously when they start falling to the floor screaming , covering themselves in fake blood , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, but that's not realistic.We should only take it seriously when they start falling to the floor screaming, covering themselves in fake blood, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28550731</id>
	<title>It is only because of Tetris...</title>
	<author>UltimaL337Star</author>
	<datestamp>1246446720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That I have become desensitized to organizing my desk everyday.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That I have become desensitized to organizing my desk everyday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That I have become desensitized to organizing my desk everyday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540629</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>cjb110</author>
	<datestamp>1246452660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot to mention that:<br>You've saved more people than Ghandi, Jesus, USA and the UNSC. You have saved millions more than you killed. You have built hundreds of ecological perfect cities that house thousands. You have helped evolve the human race from primates to space travellers. You have prevented the Earth from being destroyed by aliens, asteroids, gods and your evil twin brother.  More than a few times you saved the entire solar system, and once you even saved the entire universe from destruction.  You've built roller-coasters, hospitals and entire transport networks.  You've read more about ancient history, engineering and advanced physics than anybody.  You're worshipped by millions and your choices directly improve the lives of trillions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot to mention that : You 've saved more people than Ghandi , Jesus , USA and the UNSC .
You have saved millions more than you killed .
You have built hundreds of ecological perfect cities that house thousands .
You have helped evolve the human race from primates to space travellers .
You have prevented the Earth from being destroyed by aliens , asteroids , gods and your evil twin brother .
More than a few times you saved the entire solar system , and once you even saved the entire universe from destruction .
You 've built roller-coasters , hospitals and entire transport networks .
You 've read more about ancient history , engineering and advanced physics than anybody .
You 're worshipped by millions and your choices directly improve the lives of trillions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot to mention that:You've saved more people than Ghandi, Jesus, USA and the UNSC.
You have saved millions more than you killed.
You have built hundreds of ecological perfect cities that house thousands.
You have helped evolve the human race from primates to space travellers.
You have prevented the Earth from being destroyed by aliens, asteroids, gods and your evil twin brother.
More than a few times you saved the entire solar system, and once you even saved the entire universe from destruction.
You've built roller-coasters, hospitals and entire transport networks.
You've read more about ancient history, engineering and advanced physics than anybody.
You're worshipped by millions and your choices directly improve the lives of trillions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540105</id>
	<title>You don't need BioShock...</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1246445580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... for example in the ESRB 12 years rated <i>World of WarCraft WotLK</i> there's a quest where you have to <b>torture</b> a prisoner to get intel...<br>
What about this? Is it morally acceptable for 12 yrs old kids?<br>
Are all them children of torture supporters like the previous american administration?<br>
Cheers,</htmltext>
<tokenext>... for example in the ESRB 12 years rated World of WarCraft WotLK there 's a quest where you have to torture a prisoner to get intel.. . What about this ?
Is it morally acceptable for 12 yrs old kids ?
Are all them children of torture supporters like the previous american administration ?
Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for example in the ESRB 12 years rated World of WarCraft WotLK there's a quest where you have to torture a prisoner to get intel...
What about this?
Is it morally acceptable for 12 yrs old kids?
Are all them children of torture supporters like the previous american administration?
Cheers,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540265</id>
	<title>desensitize this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246448160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Sure, I could play it more and desensitize myself, but I don't want to. And that's just me."</p><p>i see it differently. he see's desensitization, i see immersion. and no matter how much i play manhunt, i never become desensitized. i still stop every 30 minutes and think, "wow, this game is sick." i think he was just scared of bioshock, and hey, it was a scary game. better not try playing condemned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sure , I could play it more and desensitize myself , but I do n't want to .
And that 's just me .
" i see it differently .
he see 's desensitization , i see immersion .
and no matter how much i play manhunt , i never become desensitized .
i still stop every 30 minutes and think , " wow , this game is sick .
" i think he was just scared of bioshock , and hey , it was a scary game .
better not try playing condemned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sure, I could play it more and desensitize myself, but I don't want to.
And that's just me.
"i see it differently.
he see's desensitization, i see immersion.
and no matter how much i play manhunt, i never become desensitized.
i still stop every 30 minutes and think, "wow, this game is sick.
" i think he was just scared of bioshock, and hey, it was a scary game.
better not try playing condemned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541473</id>
	<title>Spielburg's AI</title>
	<author>JoeCool1986</author>
	<datestamp>1246459080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This reminds me a scene I have often thought about from AI where the people in the arena are destroying androids a la Roman Colosseum. Even if you take a Weak AI view (which I do), this is still a disturbing scene. There's nothing actually wrong with the disassembling of a electronic circuits in the least bit (again, taking the Weak AI view), but to tear apart a creature with pleasure that just <i>looks</i> and <i>feels</i> so alive says something about you, and I would say it's not a good thing.

And yet on the flip side I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving an old computer or copier a good beating in your backyard for the heck of it - even one that didn't give you trouble, just because harmless destruction is fun (think pinata).<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me a scene I have often thought about from AI where the people in the arena are destroying androids a la Roman Colosseum .
Even if you take a Weak AI view ( which I do ) , this is still a disturbing scene .
There 's nothing actually wrong with the disassembling of a electronic circuits in the least bit ( again , taking the Weak AI view ) , but to tear apart a creature with pleasure that just looks and feels so alive says something about you , and I would say it 's not a good thing .
And yet on the flip side I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving an old computer or copier a good beating in your backyard for the heck of it - even one that did n't give you trouble , just because harmless destruction is fun ( think pinata ) .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me a scene I have often thought about from AI where the people in the arena are destroying androids a la Roman Colosseum.
Even if you take a Weak AI view (which I do), this is still a disturbing scene.
There's nothing actually wrong with the disassembling of a electronic circuits in the least bit (again, taking the Weak AI view), but to tear apart a creature with pleasure that just looks and feels so alive says something about you, and I would say it's not a good thing.
And yet on the flip side I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving an old computer or copier a good beating in your backyard for the heck of it - even one that didn't give you trouble, just because harmless destruction is fun (think pinata).
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542711</id>
	<title>Re:You don't need BioShock...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246464780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here I thought digging through your own poo was more traumatizing...</p><p>Anyway, you're only torturing a Scourge unit, and it's using the Light!  How can it be bad if you're the good guy "compelling" something not-even-alive into talking by using something so holy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here I thought digging through your own poo was more traumatizing...Anyway , you 're only torturing a Scourge unit , and it 's using the Light !
How can it be bad if you 're the good guy " compelling " something not-even-alive into talking by using something so holy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here I thought digging through your own poo was more traumatizing...Anyway, you're only torturing a Scourge unit, and it's using the Light!
How can it be bad if you're the good guy "compelling" something not-even-alive into talking by using something so holy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28546321</id>
	<title>well that IS why Postal 2 was made, to satire this</title>
	<author>Hobyx</author>
	<datestamp>1246475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We don't have enough satire games (something I'm hoping to make at some point) to counter this trend. Especially detrimental is the steady growth of games which glorify the murder-in-war simulation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have enough satire games ( something I 'm hoping to make at some point ) to counter this trend .
Especially detrimental is the steady growth of games which glorify the murder-in-war simulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have enough satire games (something I'm hoping to make at some point) to counter this trend.
Especially detrimental is the steady growth of games which glorify the murder-in-war simulation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541553</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246459500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media. "</p><p>Where is the proof? It's one thing to point to known instances of these things in military training in Japan, but the shift to "it's happening to our children!" is unsubstantiated.</p><p>"Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume."</p><p>Same thing here. I'm 23, and I've been raised with the media yelling at me all my life. I don't know of any situation in which "kids" are watching images of human death and suffering and laughing at it. These two points seem to hold up his entire point that the media is doing for children what governments have done for soldiers, and I find them quite shaky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media .
" Where is the proof ?
It 's one thing to point to known instances of these things in military training in Japan , but the shift to " it 's happening to our children !
" is unsubstantiated .
" Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with : laughter , cheers , popcorn , soda , and their girlfriend 's perfume .
" Same thing here .
I 'm 23 , and I 've been raised with the media yelling at me all my life .
I do n't know of any situation in which " kids " are watching images of human death and suffering and laughing at it .
These two points seem to hold up his entire point that the media is doing for children what governments have done for soldiers , and I find them quite shaky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Something very similar is happening to our children through violence in the media.
"Where is the proof?
It's one thing to point to known instances of these things in military training in Japan, but the shift to "it's happening to our children!
" is unsubstantiated.
"Kids watch vivid images of human death and suffering and they learn to associate it with: laughter, cheers, popcorn, soda, and their girlfriend's perfume.
"Same thing here.
I'm 23, and I've been raised with the media yelling at me all my life.
I don't know of any situation in which "kids" are watching images of human death and suffering and laughing at it.
These two points seem to hold up his entire point that the media is doing for children what governments have done for soldiers, and I find them quite shaky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539567</id>
	<title>I can't shake this feeling.</title>
	<author>Atario</author>
	<datestamp>1246438860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This feeling that the article, and most of the top-modded posts in this thread, are concern-trolling so sincerely that the writers themselves almost believe it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This feeling that the article , and most of the top-modded posts in this thread , are concern-trolling so sincerely that the writers themselves almost believe it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This feeling that the article, and most of the top-modded posts in this thread, are concern-trolling so sincerely that the writers themselves almost believe it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539061</id>
	<title>Oh, please.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1246388880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kids pointing their fingers at each other and yelling "bang!" are simulating murder.  So what?</p><p>Hundreds of millions of kids play cops and robbers or cowboys and indians,  and never hurt anyone at all.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kids pointing their fingers at each other and yelling " bang !
" are simulating murder .
So what ? Hundreds of millions of kids play cops and robbers or cowboys and indians , and never hurt anyone at all.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kids pointing their fingers at each other and yelling "bang!
" are simulating murder.
So what?Hundreds of millions of kids play cops and robbers or cowboys and indians,  and never hurt anyone at all.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539233</id>
	<title>Virtuality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246390800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Watch Virtuality (new show on Fox), it seems to cover this same issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch Virtuality ( new show on Fox ) , it seems to cover this same issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch Virtuality (new show on Fox), it seems to cover this same issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539593</id>
	<title>Re:Is this for real?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1246439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's not. Games may become more realistic, but the line between real life and games is still very strong and valid. It's neither fine nor blurry. I click a mouse, a collection of pixels goes through an animation that shows how the sprite or model I just aimed at "dies". This is true for any game I know of.</p><p>If you know of a game where a click of my mouse has any effect in real life whatsoever (hey, needn't even be a bullet flying towards a real person really threatening this person's life), we may continue talking about lines that get finer and blurry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not .
Games may become more realistic , but the line between real life and games is still very strong and valid .
It 's neither fine nor blurry .
I click a mouse , a collection of pixels goes through an animation that shows how the sprite or model I just aimed at " dies " .
This is true for any game I know of.If you know of a game where a click of my mouse has any effect in real life whatsoever ( hey , need n't even be a bullet flying towards a real person really threatening this person 's life ) , we may continue talking about lines that get finer and blurry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's not.
Games may become more realistic, but the line between real life and games is still very strong and valid.
It's neither fine nor blurry.
I click a mouse, a collection of pixels goes through an animation that shows how the sprite or model I just aimed at "dies".
This is true for any game I know of.If you know of a game where a click of my mouse has any effect in real life whatsoever (hey, needn't even be a bullet flying towards a real person really threatening this person's life), we may continue talking about lines that get finer and blurry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538951</id>
	<title>frist ps0t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246387740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't somebody please think of the children!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't somebody please think of the children !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't somebody please think of the children!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539037</id>
	<title>Virtual murder isn't and cannot be murder.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246388580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.  This requires the death of a human being, being the ceasation of life.  One cannot commit virtual murder.<p>
Further more, one cannot commit murder against an artificial intelligence or even an alien (at this moment in most countries).</p><p>
To confuse 'killing' avatars in an MMO with murder is rediculous, at its best, rendering an avatar useless against the law would be property damage.</p><p>
The photorealistic qualities of games do not change the law, or impart more permanent consequences.   Even if a computer peripheral sprays blood on my face after shooting a digital representation of my mom on screen, it doesn't mean I killed her.  It may not be great for one's mental health, but neither is entertaining to many realistic daydreams about similar topics.</p><p>
Page me when I can actually press a button while playing a game, and a handgun mounted on top of thier monitor shoots someone in face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being .
This requires the death of a human being , being the ceasation of life .
One can not commit virtual murder .
Further more , one can not commit murder against an artificial intelligence or even an alien ( at this moment in most countries ) .
To confuse 'killing ' avatars in an MMO with murder is rediculous , at its best , rendering an avatar useless against the law would be property damage .
The photorealistic qualities of games do not change the law , or impart more permanent consequences .
Even if a computer peripheral sprays blood on my face after shooting a digital representation of my mom on screen , it does n't mean I killed her .
It may not be great for one 's mental health , but neither is entertaining to many realistic daydreams about similar topics .
Page me when I can actually press a button while playing a game , and a handgun mounted on top of thier monitor shoots someone in face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.
This requires the death of a human being, being the ceasation of life.
One cannot commit virtual murder.
Further more, one cannot commit murder against an artificial intelligence or even an alien (at this moment in most countries).
To confuse 'killing' avatars in an MMO with murder is rediculous, at its best, rendering an avatar useless against the law would be property damage.
The photorealistic qualities of games do not change the law, or impart more permanent consequences.
Even if a computer peripheral sprays blood on my face after shooting a digital representation of my mom on screen, it doesn't mean I killed her.
It may not be great for one's mental health, but neither is entertaining to many realistic daydreams about similar topics.
Page me when I can actually press a button while playing a game, and a handgun mounted on top of thier monitor shoots someone in face.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28557683</id>
	<title>Killing to survive = !murder</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1246549320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have two words for a reason.  In something like GTA, you're largely murdering.  In Bioshock, you're fighting for your life. Killing a prisoner at your mercy is murder.  Killing an enemy combatant on the field is not.</p><p>Some games are a bit to violent and a bit to gory.  But let's not use the wrong word to provoke an emotional response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have two words for a reason .
In something like GTA , you 're largely murdering .
In Bioshock , you 're fighting for your life .
Killing a prisoner at your mercy is murder .
Killing an enemy combatant on the field is not.Some games are a bit to violent and a bit to gory .
But let 's not use the wrong word to provoke an emotional response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have two words for a reason.
In something like GTA, you're largely murdering.
In Bioshock, you're fighting for your life.
Killing a prisoner at your mercy is murder.
Killing an enemy combatant on the field is not.Some games are a bit to violent and a bit to gory.
But let's not use the wrong word to provoke an emotional response.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539013</id>
	<title>Played for along time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ive been playing games since i was a 1 year old, im a perfectly normal human being (other then having A.S and Dyslexiea)

Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or form, infact you could narrow it down to killing electricity, becuase quite honestly, what powers your computer?

HOWEVER: I do notice and accept that preforming these acts in/on the computer screen does stimulate your brain as to say "This is a possible outcome, I shall prepare myself for it" it is then barried into your sub-concenious, you dont think of it like that but that is the way your brain handles it

On top of that i do have to notice the crimes commited by "so called" GTA players (now we all know its BS that its just GTA, thats just aload of mass media ass-hattery)

I am a good human being, ive done nothing wrong and i sware, the day the government tells me what i can and cannot do on the net or in/on games is infact the fact i eather die or take up arms again those that will suromvent my RIGHT to view stuff that i wish to view (or do)

As to where i draw the line: anything that deals with rape or anything of the forceful nature done on human beings OR pixels that is not wished to be done to them, and no that does not mean i wont kill you in team fortress 2 if you ask me not to, ill still gladly flame your ass from here to timbukto and back again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ive been playing games since i was a 1 year old , im a perfectly normal human being ( other then having A.S and Dyslexiea ) Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or form , infact you could narrow it down to killing electricity , becuase quite honestly , what powers your computer ?
HOWEVER : I do notice and accept that preforming these acts in/on the computer screen does stimulate your brain as to say " This is a possible outcome , I shall prepare myself for it " it is then barried into your sub-concenious , you dont think of it like that but that is the way your brain handles it On top of that i do have to notice the crimes commited by " so called " GTA players ( now we all know its BS that its just GTA , thats just aload of mass media ass-hattery ) I am a good human being , ive done nothing wrong and i sware , the day the government tells me what i can and can not do on the net or in/on games is infact the fact i eather die or take up arms again those that will suromvent my RIGHT to view stuff that i wish to view ( or do ) As to where i draw the line : anything that deals with rape or anything of the forceful nature done on human beings OR pixels that is not wished to be done to them , and no that does not mean i wont kill you in team fortress 2 if you ask me not to , ill still gladly flame your ass from here to timbukto and back again : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ive been playing games since i was a 1 year old, im a perfectly normal human being (other then having A.S and Dyslexiea)

Killing human beings and killing pixels ARE NOT THE SAME in any way shape or form, infact you could narrow it down to killing electricity, becuase quite honestly, what powers your computer?
HOWEVER: I do notice and accept that preforming these acts in/on the computer screen does stimulate your brain as to say "This is a possible outcome, I shall prepare myself for it" it is then barried into your sub-concenious, you dont think of it like that but that is the way your brain handles it

On top of that i do have to notice the crimes commited by "so called" GTA players (now we all know its BS that its just GTA, thats just aload of mass media ass-hattery)

I am a good human being, ive done nothing wrong and i sware, the day the government tells me what i can and cannot do on the net or in/on games is infact the fact i eather die or take up arms again those that will suromvent my RIGHT to view stuff that i wish to view (or do)

As to where i draw the line: anything that deals with rape or anything of the forceful nature done on human beings OR pixels that is not wished to be done to them, and no that does not mean i wont kill you in team fortress 2 if you ask me not to, ill still gladly flame your ass from here to timbukto and back again :D</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28551551</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>hstueckler</author>
	<datestamp>1246450620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The premise may be weak, but it is not false.  I agree that playing video games is not going to turn you into a stone cold killer, however, it is a piece of the equation.  It has been said several times, and rightly so, that crazy people will do crazy things no matter what, but the question is, are we creating psuedo-crazy people?<br><br>There is strong evidence that we are.  Well researched, documented evidence was compiled in a book called \_On Killing:  The psychological cost of learning to kill at war and in society\_ (or something very close to that).   A well informed debate would have to address the evidence stated by the author, and if you have any interest in having a well rounded opinion on the subject, it is a must read.<br><br>In a nutshell, there are several mental "safeties" that need to be tripped before a human being can willingly kill another.  The safeties include peer support, physical distance from victim, preconditioned response, desensitization, and several more.  The violent video game is just one of several factors, currently prevalent in society, that trip the safeties.  The problem is that all of the safeties can be removed by common, culturally acceptable activities.<br><br>Probably all of us in this forum can say that we loved to play those games, and it didn't turn us into murderers, but I can say with equal confidence that the most murderous youth in recent history (columbine, etc.) did in fact play those games as well.  It was a necessary ingredient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The premise may be weak , but it is not false .
I agree that playing video games is not going to turn you into a stone cold killer , however , it is a piece of the equation .
It has been said several times , and rightly so , that crazy people will do crazy things no matter what , but the question is , are we creating psuedo-crazy people ? There is strong evidence that we are .
Well researched , documented evidence was compiled in a book called \ _On Killing : The psychological cost of learning to kill at war and in society \ _ ( or something very close to that ) .
A well informed debate would have to address the evidence stated by the author , and if you have any interest in having a well rounded opinion on the subject , it is a must read.In a nutshell , there are several mental " safeties " that need to be tripped before a human being can willingly kill another .
The safeties include peer support , physical distance from victim , preconditioned response , desensitization , and several more .
The violent video game is just one of several factors , currently prevalent in society , that trip the safeties .
The problem is that all of the safeties can be removed by common , culturally acceptable activities.Probably all of us in this forum can say that we loved to play those games , and it did n't turn us into murderers , but I can say with equal confidence that the most murderous youth in recent history ( columbine , etc .
) did in fact play those games as well .
It was a necessary ingredient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premise may be weak, but it is not false.
I agree that playing video games is not going to turn you into a stone cold killer, however, it is a piece of the equation.
It has been said several times, and rightly so, that crazy people will do crazy things no matter what, but the question is, are we creating psuedo-crazy people?There is strong evidence that we are.
Well researched, documented evidence was compiled in a book called \_On Killing:  The psychological cost of learning to kill at war and in society\_ (or something very close to that).
A well informed debate would have to address the evidence stated by the author, and if you have any interest in having a well rounded opinion on the subject, it is a must read.In a nutshell, there are several mental "safeties" that need to be tripped before a human being can willingly kill another.
The safeties include peer support, physical distance from victim, preconditioned response, desensitization, and several more.
The violent video game is just one of several factors, currently prevalent in society, that trip the safeties.
The problem is that all of the safeties can be removed by common, culturally acceptable activities.Probably all of us in this forum can say that we loved to play those games, and it didn't turn us into murderers, but I can say with equal confidence that the most murderous youth in recent history (columbine, etc.
) did in fact play those games as well.
It was a necessary ingredient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542277</id>
	<title>Re:Violence vs. sex?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246462860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A Rape game? Lots of people would enjoy it, presuming it had the same production values of a a GTA4-style "murder simulator". Now they won't tell you that publicly of course, but I'd lay any amount of money that the torrent downloads for it would be through the roof.</p><p>People won't tell you publicly that they desire such a game for the same reason that such a game will never be produced: cultural taboos on sex that don't exist for murder.</p><p>And you know what? Provided there were actual game objectives and production values and a storyline, I really don't think anyone would be the sicker for having played it, because healthy people can seperate fantasy and reality, and taboo as it is in our society, rape fantasy is just that -- fantasy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A Rape game ?
Lots of people would enjoy it , presuming it had the same production values of a a GTA4-style " murder simulator " .
Now they wo n't tell you that publicly of course , but I 'd lay any amount of money that the torrent downloads for it would be through the roof.People wo n't tell you publicly that they desire such a game for the same reason that such a game will never be produced : cultural taboos on sex that do n't exist for murder.And you know what ?
Provided there were actual game objectives and production values and a storyline , I really do n't think anyone would be the sicker for having played it , because healthy people can seperate fantasy and reality , and taboo as it is in our society , rape fantasy is just that -- fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A Rape game?
Lots of people would enjoy it, presuming it had the same production values of a a GTA4-style "murder simulator".
Now they won't tell you that publicly of course, but I'd lay any amount of money that the torrent downloads for it would be through the roof.People won't tell you publicly that they desire such a game for the same reason that such a game will never be produced: cultural taboos on sex that don't exist for murder.And you know what?
Provided there were actual game objectives and production values and a storyline, I really don't think anyone would be the sicker for having played it, because healthy people can seperate fantasy and reality, and taboo as it is in our society, rape fantasy is just that -- fantasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540881</id>
	<title>No restrictions on books</title>
	<author>sckeener</author>
	<datestamp>1246455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can read about any subject in gruesome detail.  I don't see why we should limit the video game market.

I have friends that love to read horror stories (or heck John Norman's Chronicles of Gor) and others that like fluffy bunny anime stories; however I do not see the government stepping in to stop these.

I think the difference is the variety of the market.  If there were as many video games as there are books, the focus would be more defused.

About the only ESRB like rating for the book industry outside of genre is Adult or not Adult.
 Why we make that distinction when over in the romance section, books as graphic in words as any picture in playboy are being sold, I'll never know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can read about any subject in gruesome detail .
I do n't see why we should limit the video game market .
I have friends that love to read horror stories ( or heck John Norman 's Chronicles of Gor ) and others that like fluffy bunny anime stories ; however I do not see the government stepping in to stop these .
I think the difference is the variety of the market .
If there were as many video games as there are books , the focus would be more defused .
About the only ESRB like rating for the book industry outside of genre is Adult or not Adult .
Why we make that distinction when over in the romance section , books as graphic in words as any picture in playboy are being sold , I 'll never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can read about any subject in gruesome detail.
I don't see why we should limit the video game market.
I have friends that love to read horror stories (or heck John Norman's Chronicles of Gor) and others that like fluffy bunny anime stories; however I do not see the government stepping in to stop these.
I think the difference is the variety of the market.
If there were as many video games as there are books, the focus would be more defused.
About the only ESRB like rating for the book industry outside of genre is Adult or not Adult.
Why we make that distinction when over in the romance section, books as graphic in words as any picture in playboy are being sold, I'll never know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539177</id>
	<title>Virtual reality as a moral imperative?</title>
	<author>PsychoKick</author>
	<datestamp>1246390080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The closer games get to simulating reality, the less reasons &amp; excuses there are to do bad things in reality. With full immersive VR, the collective id of humanity can be contained in the sandbox "Matrix" where it belongs. Reality may finally become the exclusive domain of our higher nature, unpolluted by our base, obsolete animal/tribal urges.</p><p>People are so quick to fear the "corrupting" effects of virtual reality, but it may very well be that VR is the key to establishing an unimaginably better reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The closer games get to simulating reality , the less reasons &amp; excuses there are to do bad things in reality .
With full immersive VR , the collective id of humanity can be contained in the sandbox " Matrix " where it belongs .
Reality may finally become the exclusive domain of our higher nature , unpolluted by our base , obsolete animal/tribal urges.People are so quick to fear the " corrupting " effects of virtual reality , but it may very well be that VR is the key to establishing an unimaginably better reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The closer games get to simulating reality, the less reasons &amp; excuses there are to do bad things in reality.
With full immersive VR, the collective id of humanity can be contained in the sandbox "Matrix" where it belongs.
Reality may finally become the exclusive domain of our higher nature, unpolluted by our base, obsolete animal/tribal urges.People are so quick to fear the "corrupting" effects of virtual reality, but it may very well be that VR is the key to establishing an unimaginably better reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539027</id>
	<title>Who deserves to be murdered?</title>
	<author>ringbarer</author>
	<datestamp>1246388520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can think of three people:</p><p>* Gottfrid Svartholm<br>* Fredrik Neij<br>* Peter Sunde</p><p>The messiahs of theft.  Their greatest heist was to steal the good will offered by their supporters.  The talentless scum who believe they shouldn't have to contribute a cent towards the artistic output of better people.  The same scum who believed in piracy for social change.  Scum who would download episodes of their favorite Sci-Fi shows, but cry the loudest when they were cancelled, incapable of making the connection between viewer ratings and advertising revenue.  All played for fools by the messiahs of theft, who are laughing at you all.</p><p>I promise you this: Appeals or not, they will NOT make it to jail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of three people : * Gottfrid Svartholm * Fredrik Neij * Peter SundeThe messiahs of theft .
Their greatest heist was to steal the good will offered by their supporters .
The talentless scum who believe they should n't have to contribute a cent towards the artistic output of better people .
The same scum who believed in piracy for social change .
Scum who would download episodes of their favorite Sci-Fi shows , but cry the loudest when they were cancelled , incapable of making the connection between viewer ratings and advertising revenue .
All played for fools by the messiahs of theft , who are laughing at you all.I promise you this : Appeals or not , they will NOT make it to jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of three people:* Gottfrid Svartholm* Fredrik Neij* Peter SundeThe messiahs of theft.
Their greatest heist was to steal the good will offered by their supporters.
The talentless scum who believe they shouldn't have to contribute a cent towards the artistic output of better people.
The same scum who believed in piracy for social change.
Scum who would download episodes of their favorite Sci-Fi shows, but cry the loudest when they were cancelled, incapable of making the connection between viewer ratings and advertising revenue.
All played for fools by the messiahs of theft, who are laughing at you all.I promise you this: Appeals or not, they will NOT make it to jail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28554831</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246566960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot "All those<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... moments will be lost in time, like tears...in rain."!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot " All those ... moments will be lost in time , like tears...in rain .
" !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot "All those ... moments will be lost in time, like tears...in rain.
"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538969</id>
	<title>MURDER-BOX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246387980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Expect another great piece by Martha MacCallum on FOX...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Expect another great piece by Martha MacCallum on FOX.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Expect another great piece by Martha MacCallum on FOX...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540959</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1246455900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really liked Dave Grossman's book "On Killing" years ago when it first came out, but he seems to have gone off the rails since then. Computer games are murder simulators and all that.</p><p>I think he's got the psychology and conditioning aspects right, but I'm not convinced that videogames translates to murder training tools. I think it's a complex issue and you have to see it in context with everything else that happens in people's lives. If someone is mentally unstable and surrounds themselves with violent films, music and video games, obviously we need to pay attention. But I don't think healthy, normal kids or people are really very vulnerable to violent video games or indeed any kind of violent media.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really liked Dave Grossman 's book " On Killing " years ago when it first came out , but he seems to have gone off the rails since then .
Computer games are murder simulators and all that.I think he 's got the psychology and conditioning aspects right , but I 'm not convinced that videogames translates to murder training tools .
I think it 's a complex issue and you have to see it in context with everything else that happens in people 's lives .
If someone is mentally unstable and surrounds themselves with violent films , music and video games , obviously we need to pay attention .
But I do n't think healthy , normal kids or people are really very vulnerable to violent video games or indeed any kind of violent media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really liked Dave Grossman's book "On Killing" years ago when it first came out, but he seems to have gone off the rails since then.
Computer games are murder simulators and all that.I think he's got the psychology and conditioning aspects right, but I'm not convinced that videogames translates to murder training tools.
I think it's a complex issue and you have to see it in context with everything else that happens in people's lives.
If someone is mentally unstable and surrounds themselves with violent films, music and video games, obviously we need to pay attention.
But I don't think healthy, normal kids or people are really very vulnerable to violent video games or indeed any kind of violent media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539467</id>
	<title>Re:Perhapss most CAN'T understand...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   No you have become such a dumbass that you cant seperate a game from reality. An on screen image of a mythical creature is not innocent or real. Stop pushing this nonsense onto people. If you do not enjoy the game then dont buy it, dont play it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No you have become such a dumbass that you cant seperate a game from reality .
An on screen image of a mythical creature is not innocent or real .
Stop pushing this nonsense onto people .
If you do not enjoy the game then dont buy it , dont play it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   No you have become such a dumbass that you cant seperate a game from reality.
An on screen image of a mythical creature is not innocent or real.
Stop pushing this nonsense onto people.
If you do not enjoy the game then dont buy it, dont play it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539151</id>
	<title>Re:Virtual murder isn't and cannot be murder.</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1246389900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Representations mean something. If you know someone that is always playing "Virtual KKK," running around lynching black men and burning crosses in a virtual setting, are you going to say, "oh, he's not a racist, those aren't real people?" No, you're going to make a connection between the representation of a thing and the thing itself.</p><p>While the re-enactment of a murder isn't the same as a murder, no one is saying that it is. What they are saying is that indulgence in the first desensitizes us from our horror about the second. I think it's generally true (and by no means limited to games, either.) Games and media affect the emotions: they can teach, they can inspire, they can create fear and suspense, they can produce empathy. Why do you think they are incapable of also reducing empathy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Representations mean something .
If you know someone that is always playing " Virtual KKK , " running around lynching black men and burning crosses in a virtual setting , are you going to say , " oh , he 's not a racist , those are n't real people ?
" No , you 're going to make a connection between the representation of a thing and the thing itself.While the re-enactment of a murder is n't the same as a murder , no one is saying that it is .
What they are saying is that indulgence in the first desensitizes us from our horror about the second .
I think it 's generally true ( and by no means limited to games , either .
) Games and media affect the emotions : they can teach , they can inspire , they can create fear and suspense , they can produce empathy .
Why do you think they are incapable of also reducing empathy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Representations mean something.
If you know someone that is always playing "Virtual KKK," running around lynching black men and burning crosses in a virtual setting, are you going to say, "oh, he's not a racist, those aren't real people?
" No, you're going to make a connection between the representation of a thing and the thing itself.While the re-enactment of a murder isn't the same as a murder, no one is saying that it is.
What they are saying is that indulgence in the first desensitizes us from our horror about the second.
I think it's generally true (and by no means limited to games, either.
) Games and media affect the emotions: they can teach, they can inspire, they can create fear and suspense, they can produce empathy.
Why do you think they are incapable of also reducing empathy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541429</id>
	<title>Drawling the line at BioShock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246458780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny the OP should mention that -- I came to the same conclusion myself. That game is simply disgusting.</p><p>But I'm much, much more concerned with games that portray realistic violence against recognizably *human* figures. Complete with realistic "death animations", and plenty of virtual gore. These are, in my mind, right up there with "horror" movies: incredibly damaging to the human psyche.</p><p>I'm sorry, but if you like games where you murder people in a realistic fashion, or movies that present realistic images of people being butchered, then you are a sociopath.</p><p>These games are not just games anymore; these movies are not just movies. They are not harmless entertainment. They have crossed a line. I am a strong believer in free speech, but there must be a limit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny the OP should mention that -- I came to the same conclusion myself .
That game is simply disgusting.But I 'm much , much more concerned with games that portray realistic violence against recognizably * human * figures .
Complete with realistic " death animations " , and plenty of virtual gore .
These are , in my mind , right up there with " horror " movies : incredibly damaging to the human psyche.I 'm sorry , but if you like games where you murder people in a realistic fashion , or movies that present realistic images of people being butchered , then you are a sociopath.These games are not just games anymore ; these movies are not just movies .
They are not harmless entertainment .
They have crossed a line .
I am a strong believer in free speech , but there must be a limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny the OP should mention that -- I came to the same conclusion myself.
That game is simply disgusting.But I'm much, much more concerned with games that portray realistic violence against recognizably *human* figures.
Complete with realistic "death animations", and plenty of virtual gore.
These are, in my mind, right up there with "horror" movies: incredibly damaging to the human psyche.I'm sorry, but if you like games where you murder people in a realistic fashion, or movies that present realistic images of people being butchered, then you are a sociopath.These games are not just games anymore; these movies are not just movies.
They are not harmless entertainment.
They have crossed a line.
I am a strong believer in free speech, but there must be a limit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539407</id>
	<title>Desensitized?</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1246479660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in my early 30's.  I've spent a great number of hours playing Wolfenstein, Mortal Kombat, Doom, Quake, every incarnation of Grand Theft Auto, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct, and so on.  Although I don't have reasonable numbers to work with, I'm comfortable saying I played these violent games more than the average person.  I watched a lot of gory movies, too.  I've had a healthy dose of Three Stooges and Warner Brothers cartoons to boot.</p><p>There are a couple of things about me I'd like to say about me.  First, I don't think anybody would ever describe me as violent.  It takes a lot to even get me to shout at somebody.  I don't bang my fist on the keyboard or steering wheel.  I don't threaten to hurt people.  I have a real calm demeanor.  You've all heard that story from other people before so I'll leave this point here.</p><p>Secondly, I'd say I'm about as desensitized as it gets.  I really cannot imagine that my exposure to all of this media is anything but 'higher than average'.  I didn't even find beating up hookers in GTA all that shocking.  (Or fun, either.  Despite what the noisy people have said, you start avoid killing pedestrians when the cops come after you and make completing missions difficult.  Compare that to, say, Crazy Taxi, and well I can tell you what I'd prefer my future kid to play when learning-to-drive time comes along.)</p><p>When I was in college, though, I made a surprising discovery.  Somebody mentioned Rotten.com, a site where you can see actual real dead bodies.  (Do not go there unless you're really to see something like that. <b>NSFW</b>)  Two things really struck me about the content of that site.  First was that I gasped and made a bitter-beer-face.  Second was that this shit didn't look like anything I had seen in Hollywood.  (Although I dare say Starship Troopers was awfully close.)  Part of it is simply knowing that this was <i>real</i> and not made up baloney, but part of it was that damaged flesh is a very complex... and goopy, swelly, discolor'y.  In other words, I reacted to <i>actual</i> murders and accidents in a way that is significantly different from the way I react to them in video games.</p><p>Since observing that, I realized that knowing that something actually happened makes a huge difference.  I went by the Television Department in college and saw a safety video that was part of the orientation that rail-road workers were required to watch.  I wanted to watch it because I caught part of it and was like "That guy got his foot smashed!  Neat!!"  So the instructor was like "Okay, watch this..."  The video I saw had a train come to a stop and put these legs down on the ground, I assume to stabilize the train while cargo boxes were lifted off it.  This guy had his hand in the way and the engineer didn't see it.  He extended the gear and *goosh* caught the guy's hand.  It was just pushed into the ground so hard that the guy pulled his arm back only to find it hand-less.  This was not gory, really.  There was no real blood or anything visual, it was all covered up by his jacket. But somewhere in the back of my head, a thought made itself heard: <i>"This happened to somebody.  It has probably happened a lot."</i>  That little clip was far more disturbing to me than anything in Robocop or any other of Verhoven's movies.</p><p>I do not believe violent video games desensitize kids because violent video games are not even heading in the vague direction of reality.  I don't care how much better the graphics get, they do not touch on the real horrors of violence.  I've yet to even really see a movie that managed this.</p><p>I think I understand where the fears of this come from.  I think we've all seen kids imitate what they see on TV.  I think the experience a video game provides, though, is being given way too much credit.  All this talk of 'murder simulators' and the like... but if you were on an airplane and the pilot died, and a teenager volunteered to fly the plane with thousands of hours of Playstation time under his belt, would you take it seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in my early 30 's .
I 've spent a great number of hours playing Wolfenstein , Mortal Kombat , Doom , Quake , every incarnation of Grand Theft Auto , Street Fighter , Killer Instinct , and so on .
Although I do n't have reasonable numbers to work with , I 'm comfortable saying I played these violent games more than the average person .
I watched a lot of gory movies , too .
I 've had a healthy dose of Three Stooges and Warner Brothers cartoons to boot.There are a couple of things about me I 'd like to say about me .
First , I do n't think anybody would ever describe me as violent .
It takes a lot to even get me to shout at somebody .
I do n't bang my fist on the keyboard or steering wheel .
I do n't threaten to hurt people .
I have a real calm demeanor .
You 've all heard that story from other people before so I 'll leave this point here.Secondly , I 'd say I 'm about as desensitized as it gets .
I really can not imagine that my exposure to all of this media is anything but 'higher than average' .
I did n't even find beating up hookers in GTA all that shocking .
( Or fun , either .
Despite what the noisy people have said , you start avoid killing pedestrians when the cops come after you and make completing missions difficult .
Compare that to , say , Crazy Taxi , and well I can tell you what I 'd prefer my future kid to play when learning-to-drive time comes along .
) When I was in college , though , I made a surprising discovery .
Somebody mentioned Rotten.com , a site where you can see actual real dead bodies .
( Do not go there unless you 're really to see something like that .
NSFW ) Two things really struck me about the content of that site .
First was that I gasped and made a bitter-beer-face .
Second was that this shit did n't look like anything I had seen in Hollywood .
( Although I dare say Starship Troopers was awfully close .
) Part of it is simply knowing that this was real and not made up baloney , but part of it was that damaged flesh is a very complex... and goopy , swelly , discolor'y .
In other words , I reacted to actual murders and accidents in a way that is significantly different from the way I react to them in video games.Since observing that , I realized that knowing that something actually happened makes a huge difference .
I went by the Television Department in college and saw a safety video that was part of the orientation that rail-road workers were required to watch .
I wanted to watch it because I caught part of it and was like " That guy got his foot smashed !
Neat ! ! " So the instructor was like " Okay , watch this... " The video I saw had a train come to a stop and put these legs down on the ground , I assume to stabilize the train while cargo boxes were lifted off it .
This guy had his hand in the way and the engineer did n't see it .
He extended the gear and * goosh * caught the guy 's hand .
It was just pushed into the ground so hard that the guy pulled his arm back only to find it hand-less .
This was not gory , really .
There was no real blood or anything visual , it was all covered up by his jacket .
But somewhere in the back of my head , a thought made itself heard : " This happened to somebody .
It has probably happened a lot .
" That little clip was far more disturbing to me than anything in Robocop or any other of Verhoven 's movies.I do not believe violent video games desensitize kids because violent video games are not even heading in the vague direction of reality .
I do n't care how much better the graphics get , they do not touch on the real horrors of violence .
I 've yet to even really see a movie that managed this.I think I understand where the fears of this come from .
I think we 've all seen kids imitate what they see on TV .
I think the experience a video game provides , though , is being given way too much credit .
All this talk of 'murder simulators ' and the like... but if you were on an airplane and the pilot died , and a teenager volunteered to fly the plane with thousands of hours of Playstation time under his belt , would you take it seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in my early 30's.
I've spent a great number of hours playing Wolfenstein, Mortal Kombat, Doom, Quake, every incarnation of Grand Theft Auto, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct, and so on.
Although I don't have reasonable numbers to work with, I'm comfortable saying I played these violent games more than the average person.
I watched a lot of gory movies, too.
I've had a healthy dose of Three Stooges and Warner Brothers cartoons to boot.There are a couple of things about me I'd like to say about me.
First, I don't think anybody would ever describe me as violent.
It takes a lot to even get me to shout at somebody.
I don't bang my fist on the keyboard or steering wheel.
I don't threaten to hurt people.
I have a real calm demeanor.
You've all heard that story from other people before so I'll leave this point here.Secondly, I'd say I'm about as desensitized as it gets.
I really cannot imagine that my exposure to all of this media is anything but 'higher than average'.
I didn't even find beating up hookers in GTA all that shocking.
(Or fun, either.
Despite what the noisy people have said, you start avoid killing pedestrians when the cops come after you and make completing missions difficult.
Compare that to, say, Crazy Taxi, and well I can tell you what I'd prefer my future kid to play when learning-to-drive time comes along.
)When I was in college, though, I made a surprising discovery.
Somebody mentioned Rotten.com, a site where you can see actual real dead bodies.
(Do not go there unless you're really to see something like that.
NSFW)  Two things really struck me about the content of that site.
First was that I gasped and made a bitter-beer-face.
Second was that this shit didn't look like anything I had seen in Hollywood.
(Although I dare say Starship Troopers was awfully close.
)  Part of it is simply knowing that this was real and not made up baloney, but part of it was that damaged flesh is a very complex... and goopy, swelly, discolor'y.
In other words, I reacted to actual murders and accidents in a way that is significantly different from the way I react to them in video games.Since observing that, I realized that knowing that something actually happened makes a huge difference.
I went by the Television Department in college and saw a safety video that was part of the orientation that rail-road workers were required to watch.
I wanted to watch it because I caught part of it and was like "That guy got his foot smashed!
Neat!!"  So the instructor was like "Okay, watch this..."  The video I saw had a train come to a stop and put these legs down on the ground, I assume to stabilize the train while cargo boxes were lifted off it.
This guy had his hand in the way and the engineer didn't see it.
He extended the gear and *goosh* caught the guy's hand.
It was just pushed into the ground so hard that the guy pulled his arm back only to find it hand-less.
This was not gory, really.
There was no real blood or anything visual, it was all covered up by his jacket.
But somewhere in the back of my head, a thought made itself heard: "This happened to somebody.
It has probably happened a lot.
"  That little clip was far more disturbing to me than anything in Robocop or any other of Verhoven's movies.I do not believe violent video games desensitize kids because violent video games are not even heading in the vague direction of reality.
I don't care how much better the graphics get, they do not touch on the real horrors of violence.
I've yet to even really see a movie that managed this.I think I understand where the fears of this come from.
I think we've all seen kids imitate what they see on TV.
I think the experience a video game provides, though, is being given way too much credit.
All this talk of 'murder simulators' and the like... but if you were on an airplane and the pilot died, and a teenager volunteered to fly the plane with thousands of hours of Playstation time under his belt, would you take it seriously?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540865</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>jimshatt</author>
	<datestamp>1246455180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You keep repeating the we're doing the same to our children, but then give no example of that. Also, the military train their soldiers to kill purposefully, and the soldiers know that it is on purpose and thus are more responsive to the stimuli they are given.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You keep repeating the we 're doing the same to our children , but then give no example of that .
Also , the military train their soldiers to kill purposefully , and the soldiers know that it is on purpose and thus are more responsive to the stimuli they are given .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You keep repeating the we're doing the same to our children, but then give no example of that.
Also, the military train their soldiers to kill purposefully, and the soldiers know that it is on purpose and thus are more responsive to the stimuli they are given.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539083</id>
	<title>There is an upside</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1246389180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We could simulate murdering Tom Cruise over and over and it would just never get old.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We could simulate murdering Tom Cruise over and over and it would just never get old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could simulate murdering Tom Cruise over and over and it would just never get old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539643</id>
	<title>the article does have a good point</title>
	<author>nixish</author>
	<datestamp>1246439520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article does recommend self-censorship rather than government censorship as a solution.
I sincerely do believe though that this is a new frontier and we will have to adapt to it with modern thinking. I would rather say that it is a "Simulated Murder Simulator" as the murder is not really happening though!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article does recommend self-censorship rather than government censorship as a solution .
I sincerely do believe though that this is a new frontier and we will have to adapt to it with modern thinking .
I would rather say that it is a " Simulated Murder Simulator " as the murder is not really happening though ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article does recommend self-censorship rather than government censorship as a solution.
I sincerely do believe though that this is a new frontier and we will have to adapt to it with modern thinking.
I would rather say that it is a "Simulated Murder Simulator" as the murder is not really happening though!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539345</id>
	<title>Just an opinion...</title>
	<author>tnok85</author>
	<datestamp>1246478700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But maybe it's the fact that we don't have enough wars going on to suit our nature. It was pretty normal going way back for every male to be involved in at least one or two deadly conflicts in their lifetime. Whether it was over food, land, family, women, or the age old money, wars and violence was much more common.&lt;p&gt;<br><br>Ever notice that the vast majority of violent games players are males? And more often than not, males seem to take more satisfaction in the actual 'kill' than a woman? (I'd LOVE to see a study on this, as this is 100\% anecdotal).&lt;p&gt;<br><br>I think it's natural for a man (and some women) to get their fix of 'violence' - a tendency perhaps inherited from centuries or millennium of justice being doled out with the sharp end of a pointy stick. Maybe we're making up for it now in a super-protective society by simulating it, to an extent.&lt;p&gt;<br><br>But yeah, this is all anecdotal. I'm not a sociological scientist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But maybe it 's the fact that we do n't have enough wars going on to suit our nature .
It was pretty normal going way back for every male to be involved in at least one or two deadly conflicts in their lifetime .
Whether it was over food , land , family , women , or the age old money , wars and violence was much more common.Ever notice that the vast majority of violent games players are males ?
And more often than not , males seem to take more satisfaction in the actual 'kill ' than a woman ?
( I 'd LOVE to see a study on this , as this is 100 \ % anecdotal ) .I think it 's natural for a man ( and some women ) to get their fix of 'violence ' - a tendency perhaps inherited from centuries or millennium of justice being doled out with the sharp end of a pointy stick .
Maybe we 're making up for it now in a super-protective society by simulating it , to an extent.But yeah , this is all anecdotal .
I 'm not a sociological scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But maybe it's the fact that we don't have enough wars going on to suit our nature.
It was pretty normal going way back for every male to be involved in at least one or two deadly conflicts in their lifetime.
Whether it was over food, land, family, women, or the age old money, wars and violence was much more common.Ever notice that the vast majority of violent games players are males?
And more often than not, males seem to take more satisfaction in the actual 'kill' than a woman?
(I'd LOVE to see a study on this, as this is 100\% anecdotal).I think it's natural for a man (and some women) to get their fix of 'violence' - a tendency perhaps inherited from centuries or millennium of justice being doled out with the sharp end of a pointy stick.
Maybe we're making up for it now in a super-protective society by simulating it, to an extent.But yeah, this is all anecdotal.
I'm not a sociological scientist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28544885</id>
	<title>How i see it.</title>
	<author>StickansT</author>
	<datestamp>1246471440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im not here to write out a long paragraph about how video games dont or do promote violence in people. Im just here to state how I look at it and deal with it. Im 21, dont have any kids, yet, but when i do im just going to treat video games like I do movies. If the movie (i.e. the Saw series) is to violent for me i just dont watch it or if the video games seems to graphic for me I just dont play it, not that big of a deal. I believe that a big part of this is up to the parents to "monitor" what their kids play i dont mean stand over their shoulder every hour of every time the kids are playing video games. Maybe follow the ESRB ratings, they are there for a reason. If u think thats the ESRB rating is not correct dont complain about the game, thats ESRBs fault, bitch to them plz. Also i read earlier about the rating of the new WOW:WOTLK, and letting 14 year olds torture a man to get information out of him, you do realize that their are thousands of quests to do in that game and u dont have to do All of them or even half of them for that matter. And if u think that torturing that man is bad. Before you had to kill alot of his friends in order to get to him. So i guess killing his friends is not as bad as torturing that one man.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Im getting off topic here, all in all if u dont want your kids to play violent video games, then dont buy them. I just cant stand how people complain about violence in video games when it all comes down to the responsibility of the parents. So basically if you dont want your kids to see violent movies dont let them, and if you dont want them to play violent games, dont let them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im not here to write out a long paragraph about how video games dont or do promote violence in people .
Im just here to state how I look at it and deal with it .
Im 21 , dont have any kids , yet , but when i do im just going to treat video games like I do movies .
If the movie ( i.e .
the Saw series ) is to violent for me i just dont watch it or if the video games seems to graphic for me I just dont play it , not that big of a deal .
I believe that a big part of this is up to the parents to " monitor " what their kids play i dont mean stand over their shoulder every hour of every time the kids are playing video games .
Maybe follow the ESRB ratings , they are there for a reason .
If u think thats the ESRB rating is not correct dont complain about the game , thats ESRBs fault , bitch to them plz .
Also i read earlier about the rating of the new WOW : WOTLK , and letting 14 year olds torture a man to get information out of him , you do realize that their are thousands of quests to do in that game and u dont have to do All of them or even half of them for that matter .
And if u think that torturing that man is bad .
Before you had to kill alot of his friends in order to get to him .
So i guess killing his friends is not as bad as torturing that one man .
                    Im getting off topic here , all in all if u dont want your kids to play violent video games , then dont buy them .
I just cant stand how people complain about violence in video games when it all comes down to the responsibility of the parents .
So basically if you dont want your kids to see violent movies dont let them , and if you dont want them to play violent games , dont let them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im not here to write out a long paragraph about how video games dont or do promote violence in people.
Im just here to state how I look at it and deal with it.
Im 21, dont have any kids, yet, but when i do im just going to treat video games like I do movies.
If the movie (i.e.
the Saw series) is to violent for me i just dont watch it or if the video games seems to graphic for me I just dont play it, not that big of a deal.
I believe that a big part of this is up to the parents to "monitor" what their kids play i dont mean stand over their shoulder every hour of every time the kids are playing video games.
Maybe follow the ESRB ratings, they are there for a reason.
If u think thats the ESRB rating is not correct dont complain about the game, thats ESRBs fault, bitch to them plz.
Also i read earlier about the rating of the new WOW:WOTLK, and letting 14 year olds torture a man to get information out of him, you do realize that their are thousands of quests to do in that game and u dont have to do All of them or even half of them for that matter.
And if u think that torturing that man is bad.
Before you had to kill alot of his friends in order to get to him.
So i guess killing his friends is not as bad as torturing that one man.
                    Im getting off topic here, all in all if u dont want your kids to play violent video games, then dont buy them.
I just cant stand how people complain about violence in video games when it all comes down to the responsibility of the parents.
So basically if you dont want your kids to see violent movies dont let them, and if you dont want them to play violent games, dont let them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28545129</id>
	<title>It's fucking distracting</title>
	<author>JockTroll</author>
	<datestamp>1246472160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck is the deal? If videogames become "too" realistically violent, there will be a minority of people able to stomach them. There's a good reason movies steer clear from too realistic depictions of violence, and that's because the majority of the audience could not stomach it. Eventually the market will decide. But it's a bunch of loserboys those who worry about games "desensitizing" people. If anything, some close-by murder simulation will put them off the real thing.</p><p>Of course, this doesn't apply to anti-nerd violence which is a social necessity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck is the deal ?
If videogames become " too " realistically violent , there will be a minority of people able to stomach them .
There 's a good reason movies steer clear from too realistic depictions of violence , and that 's because the majority of the audience could not stomach it .
Eventually the market will decide .
But it 's a bunch of loserboys those who worry about games " desensitizing " people .
If anything , some close-by murder simulation will put them off the real thing.Of course , this does n't apply to anti-nerd violence which is a social necessity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck is the deal?
If videogames become "too" realistically violent, there will be a minority of people able to stomach them.
There's a good reason movies steer clear from too realistic depictions of violence, and that's because the majority of the audience could not stomach it.
Eventually the market will decide.
But it's a bunch of loserboys those who worry about games "desensitizing" people.
If anything, some close-by murder simulation will put them off the real thing.Of course, this doesn't apply to anti-nerd violence which is a social necessity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543535</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1246467600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Games are designed as entertainment. Entertainment is not realistic.</p></div><p> <strong>Exactly!</strong> I came here to make that same comment after I read his dire prediction for GTA6. For goodness sake, if it isn't fun then it's not a game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are designed as entertainment .
Entertainment is not realistic .
Exactly ! I came here to make that same comment after I read his dire prediction for GTA6 .
For goodness sake , if it is n't fun then it 's not a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are designed as entertainment.
Entertainment is not realistic.
Exactly! I came here to make that same comment after I read his dire prediction for GTA6.
For goodness sake, if it isn't fun then it's not a game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28555589</id>
	<title>Re:Desensitized?</title>
	<author>Oriental\_Hero</author>
	<datestamp>1246534140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree in that I have been a life long gamer and was "surprised" at how sobering I found the actual footage from a gunner position on a C130 Spectre gunship. A lot of gamers today will recognise it because that scenario was part of the popular game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.<br>The gunner positions have enhanced visual aids and you could see little man shaped IR silhouettes running about and bright unfolding blossoms on the screen when the explosions from the howitzer or grenade launcher went off. Some figures would just lie down and not move and then you realised that they were probably dead. Others ran in different directions and the audio would calmly id targets and call in the targeting. As I said, very sobering when you know it's real. However, I was still able to play that scenario in COD4<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>Also having held some real pistols in the UK (a rare event for us on this side of the pond!) that too was a "sobering" experience as soon as the ammo was loaded (a gun toting buddy has nsp'd them first). Quite different from the "murder simulator"/desensitiser of Airsoft guns which I have played with quite a bit previously.<br>Essentially, I think it's all about the reality. Games are not real, they are pretend. As soon as it becomes real or related to life, the context has changed and we're in new mental territory.<br>What would be interesting in the context thing, would be to take something completely unrelated to video games and make it real. If you told people in a soccer match that the goals they scored meant people were executed, how would they feel? What about Chess? It could just be a button on a wall that random people on the street press. Probably quite sick once the "player" was informed of the reality!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree in that I have been a life long gamer and was " surprised " at how sobering I found the actual footage from a gunner position on a C130 Spectre gunship .
A lot of gamers today will recognise it because that scenario was part of the popular game Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare.The gunner positions have enhanced visual aids and you could see little man shaped IR silhouettes running about and bright unfolding blossoms on the screen when the explosions from the howitzer or grenade launcher went off .
Some figures would just lie down and not move and then you realised that they were probably dead .
Others ran in different directions and the audio would calmly id targets and call in the targeting .
As I said , very sobering when you know it 's real .
However , I was still able to play that scenario in COD4 : - ) Also having held some real pistols in the UK ( a rare event for us on this side of the pond !
) that too was a " sobering " experience as soon as the ammo was loaded ( a gun toting buddy has nsp 'd them first ) .
Quite different from the " murder simulator " /desensitiser of Airsoft guns which I have played with quite a bit previously.Essentially , I think it 's all about the reality .
Games are not real , they are pretend .
As soon as it becomes real or related to life , the context has changed and we 're in new mental territory.What would be interesting in the context thing , would be to take something completely unrelated to video games and make it real .
If you told people in a soccer match that the goals they scored meant people were executed , how would they feel ?
What about Chess ?
It could just be a button on a wall that random people on the street press .
Probably quite sick once the " player " was informed of the reality !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree in that I have been a life long gamer and was "surprised" at how sobering I found the actual footage from a gunner position on a C130 Spectre gunship.
A lot of gamers today will recognise it because that scenario was part of the popular game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.The gunner positions have enhanced visual aids and you could see little man shaped IR silhouettes running about and bright unfolding blossoms on the screen when the explosions from the howitzer or grenade launcher went off.
Some figures would just lie down and not move and then you realised that they were probably dead.
Others ran in different directions and the audio would calmly id targets and call in the targeting.
As I said, very sobering when you know it's real.
However, I was still able to play that scenario in COD4 :-)Also having held some real pistols in the UK (a rare event for us on this side of the pond!
) that too was a "sobering" experience as soon as the ammo was loaded (a gun toting buddy has nsp'd them first).
Quite different from the "murder simulator"/desensitiser of Airsoft guns which I have played with quite a bit previously.Essentially, I think it's all about the reality.
Games are not real, they are pretend.
As soon as it becomes real or related to life, the context has changed and we're in new mental territory.What would be interesting in the context thing, would be to take something completely unrelated to video games and make it real.
If you told people in a soccer match that the goals they scored meant people were executed, how would they feel?
What about Chess?
It could just be a button on a wall that random people on the street press.
Probably quite sick once the "player" was informed of the reality!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28544687</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1246470840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier (Marshall, 1998)</i>
</p><p>
That was from S.L.A. Marshall.  There's a long analysis of that guy by Col. David Hackworth, who knew him well, in About Face.  Much of S.L.A. Marshall's writings on war were faked. He wrote convincingly, but even though he really was a U.S. Army general in WWII, he never commanded a combat unit.  He was a staff analyst.  He made stuff up, and then wrote about it as if he'd been there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>During World War II , we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier ( Marshall , 1998 ) That was from S.L.A .
Marshall. There 's a long analysis of that guy by Col. David Hackworth , who knew him well , in About Face .
Much of S.L.A .
Marshall 's writings on war were faked .
He wrote convincingly , but even though he really was a U.S. Army general in WWII , he never commanded a combat unit .
He was a staff analyst .
He made stuff up , and then wrote about it as if he 'd been there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
During World War II, we discovered that only 15-20 percent of the individual riflemen would fire at an exposed enemy soldier (Marshall, 1998)

That was from S.L.A.
Marshall.  There's a long analysis of that guy by Col. David Hackworth, who knew him well, in About Face.
Much of S.L.A.
Marshall's writings on war were faked.
He wrote convincingly, but even though he really was a U.S. Army general in WWII, he never commanded a combat unit.
He was a staff analyst.
He made stuff up, and then wrote about it as if he'd been there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539199</id>
	<title>Kings also play Chess.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1246390380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chess is not a "King murder simulator"/"King murder strategy planner".</p><p>You don't "GET IT".  Games are not simulations, except these that are simulations (like ArmA 3 or American Army, Flight Simulator, etc).  Games are... games, and his conexion with reality is just<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...settings. There are rules on a videogame, much like there are rules on a table game. These rules "remenber" how the world work in some ways, but are way too artificial to be a real world, more like separate the game from real world.</p><p>In esence, all videogames are still<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Games!..  the fact that could be visually modeling a city, or a battefield, is just eyecandy, the reality is that these games are not citys-like or battlefields-like that any "Tag" game you have played with other childrens at 11 years old.</p><p>So games are nor real, nor simulations. And share traits with stuff everything else on our civilization, movies, books, everything. Helll... as children I use to play "cops and thiefs", a game that is much like counter-strike... nope, a game that is counter-strike.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chess is not a " King murder simulator " / " King murder strategy planner " .You do n't " GET IT " .
Games are not simulations , except these that are simulations ( like ArmA 3 or American Army , Flight Simulator , etc ) .
Games are... games , and his conexion with reality is just ...settings .
There are rules on a videogame , much like there are rules on a table game .
These rules " remenber " how the world work in some ways , but are way too artificial to be a real world , more like separate the game from real world.In esence , all videogames are still .. .
Games ! .. the fact that could be visually modeling a city , or a battefield , is just eyecandy , the reality is that these games are not citys-like or battlefields-like that any " Tag " game you have played with other childrens at 11 years old.So games are nor real , nor simulations .
And share traits with stuff everything else on our civilization , movies , books , everything .
Helll... as children I use to play " cops and thiefs " , a game that is much like counter-strike... nope , a game that is counter-strike .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chess is not a "King murder simulator"/"King murder strategy planner".You don't "GET IT".
Games are not simulations, except these that are simulations (like ArmA 3 or American Army, Flight Simulator, etc).
Games are... games, and his conexion with reality is just ...settings.
There are rules on a videogame, much like there are rules on a table game.
These rules "remenber" how the world work in some ways, but are way too artificial to be a real world, more like separate the game from real world.In esence, all videogames are still ...
Games!..  the fact that could be visually modeling a city, or a battefield, is just eyecandy, the reality is that these games are not citys-like or battlefields-like that any "Tag" game you have played with other childrens at 11 years old.So games are nor real, nor simulations.
And share traits with stuff everything else on our civilization, movies, books, everything.
Helll... as children I use to play "cops and thiefs", a game that is much like counter-strike... nope, a game that is counter-strike.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540113</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Games are designed as entertainment. Entertainment is not realistic. No matter what the interface (I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life.</p></div><p>So far as I know, I'm a pretty normal, well-adjusted member of society. That said, I sometimes scare myself after all-night LAN games, because after 6 hours of games and no sleep for 24, I start to get confused about the line between games and reality - I start viewing everything as 'points' and I try to make decisions about things that I would normally dismiss. I've never decided to kill someone, but I've certainly behaved in ways I would never normally behave. You can blame the lack of sleep rather than the computer games, but I worry that it's the games that inspire the bad behaviour even if the lack of self-control is due to fatigue.</p><p>So while I doubt computer games are ever solely responsible for real-life violence, I wouldn't be surprised if they could have an effect on someone who's self-control is already compromised - either by lack of sleep, sickness, or drugs such as alcohol or pot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are designed as entertainment .
Entertainment is not realistic .
No matter what the interface ( I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup ) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life.So far as I know , I 'm a pretty normal , well-adjusted member of society .
That said , I sometimes scare myself after all-night LAN games , because after 6 hours of games and no sleep for 24 , I start to get confused about the line between games and reality - I start viewing everything as 'points ' and I try to make decisions about things that I would normally dismiss .
I 've never decided to kill someone , but I 've certainly behaved in ways I would never normally behave .
You can blame the lack of sleep rather than the computer games , but I worry that it 's the games that inspire the bad behaviour even if the lack of self-control is due to fatigue.So while I doubt computer games are ever solely responsible for real-life violence , I would n't be surprised if they could have an effect on someone who 's self-control is already compromised - either by lack of sleep , sickness , or drugs such as alcohol or pot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are designed as entertainment.
Entertainment is not realistic.
No matter what the interface (I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life.So far as I know, I'm a pretty normal, well-adjusted member of society.
That said, I sometimes scare myself after all-night LAN games, because after 6 hours of games and no sleep for 24, I start to get confused about the line between games and reality - I start viewing everything as 'points' and I try to make decisions about things that I would normally dismiss.
I've never decided to kill someone, but I've certainly behaved in ways I would never normally behave.
You can blame the lack of sleep rather than the computer games, but I worry that it's the games that inspire the bad behaviour even if the lack of self-control is due to fatigue.So while I doubt computer games are ever solely responsible for real-life violence, I wouldn't be surprised if they could have an effect on someone who's self-control is already compromised - either by lack of sleep, sickness, or drugs such as alcohol or pot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539011</id>
	<title>Is this for real?</title>
	<author>Alumoi</author>
	<datestamp>1246388400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on, people. If you can't see the difference between a game and real life then you'd better go see a shrink. Or just remove yourself from the gene pool.
That's the idea behind all violent games: do it in the game, not in real life. Relieve you anger were nobody gets hurt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , people .
If you ca n't see the difference between a game and real life then you 'd better go see a shrink .
Or just remove yourself from the gene pool .
That 's the idea behind all violent games : do it in the game , not in real life .
Relieve you anger were nobody gets hurt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, people.
If you can't see the difference between a game and real life then you'd better go see a shrink.
Or just remove yourself from the gene pool.
That's the idea behind all violent games: do it in the game, not in real life.
Relieve you anger were nobody gets hurt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540053</id>
	<title>How could anyone confuse games and real life?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246444920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that if people are confusing video games with real life, then maybe we should just not let retards play games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that if people are confusing video games with real life , then maybe we should just not let retards play games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that if people are confusing video games with real life, then maybe we should just not let retards play games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539147</id>
	<title>Next FOX Special...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will probably be on the next Martha MacCallum show on FOX...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will probably be on the next Martha MacCallum show on FOX.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will probably be on the next Martha MacCallum show on FOX...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539997</id>
	<title>I'd like to propose a totally sick game...</title>
	<author>viraltus</author>
	<datestamp>1246444200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just imagine this game where everybody hates each other in a war or some kind of domestic or interstellar conflict and then you get more points the more lives you save through your actions.... er... wait a minute, I  just realized the best way to save lives in the long run in a conflict is genocide. Geeee... Just when I thought I would look like a cool a peaceful guy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just imagine this game where everybody hates each other in a war or some kind of domestic or interstellar conflict and then you get more points the more lives you save through your actions.... er... wait a minute , I just realized the best way to save lives in the long run in a conflict is genocide .
Geeee... Just when I thought I would look like a cool a peaceful guy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just imagine this game where everybody hates each other in a war or some kind of domestic or interstellar conflict and then you get more points the more lives you save through your actions.... er... wait a minute, I  just realized the best way to save lives in the long run in a conflict is genocide.
Geeee... Just when I thought I would look like a cool a peaceful guy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541629</id>
	<title>ethics that no one wants to hear</title>
	<author>eeek77</author>
	<datestamp>1246459920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's a take on this that most will disagree with (but I believe):<br><br>If it's bad for your kids, it's bad for you, too. If you are covering your kid's eyes/ears on a movie, game, whatever - that your own should probably be covered as well.<br><br>I'm not saying all entertainment except Dora and Barney should be eliminated and I'm also not calling for massive censorship of games/movies/etc.<br><br>But I am saying that hearing cuss words on TV is just as harmful for an adult as it is for children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a take on this that most will disagree with ( but I believe ) : If it 's bad for your kids , it 's bad for you , too .
If you are covering your kid 's eyes/ears on a movie , game , whatever - that your own should probably be covered as well.I 'm not saying all entertainment except Dora and Barney should be eliminated and I 'm also not calling for massive censorship of games/movies/etc.But I am saying that hearing cuss words on TV is just as harmful for an adult as it is for children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a take on this that most will disagree with (but I believe):If it's bad for your kids, it's bad for you, too.
If you are covering your kid's eyes/ears on a movie, game, whatever - that your own should probably be covered as well.I'm not saying all entertainment except Dora and Barney should be eliminated and I'm also not calling for massive censorship of games/movies/etc.But I am saying that hearing cuss words on TV is just as harmful for an adult as it is for children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539497</id>
	<title>Think of the children.</title>
	<author>KneelBeforeZod</author>
	<datestamp>1246480980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simulations don't directly kill (duh, its in the name).  Its always drawing a connection from simulation to the real thing that takes some convincing.  It's what the politicians sell when they offer up cooked up statistics or the latest school shooting for voting parents and elderly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simulations do n't directly kill ( duh , its in the name ) .
Its always drawing a connection from simulation to the real thing that takes some convincing .
It 's what the politicians sell when they offer up cooked up statistics or the latest school shooting for voting parents and elderly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simulations don't directly kill (duh, its in the name).
Its always drawing a connection from simulation to the real thing that takes some convincing.
It's what the politicians sell when they offer up cooked up statistics or the latest school shooting for voting parents and elderly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540341</id>
	<title>One paragraph had the most impact on me...</title>
	<author>SecondaryOak</author>
	<datestamp>1246449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I RTFA and found one paragraph to really show everything in a new way:
<p> <i>"Show BioShock to a non-gamer -- someone who hasn't been desensitized to killing virtual people -- and watch their reaction. Show them how you bludgeon people to death with a pipe wrench. If they don't wince and express some form of shock at what's taking place on the screen, they're either seriously disturbed or they're a seasoned gamer."</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I RTFA and found one paragraph to really show everything in a new way : " Show BioShock to a non-gamer -- someone who has n't been desensitized to killing virtual people -- and watch their reaction .
Show them how you bludgeon people to death with a pipe wrench .
If they do n't wince and express some form of shock at what 's taking place on the screen , they 're either seriously disturbed or they 're a seasoned gamer .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I RTFA and found one paragraph to really show everything in a new way:
 "Show BioShock to a non-gamer -- someone who hasn't been desensitized to killing virtual people -- and watch their reaction.
Show them how you bludgeon people to death with a pipe wrench.
If they don't wince and express some form of shock at what's taking place on the screen, they're either seriously disturbed or they're a seasoned gamer.
" </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540197</id>
	<title>Virtuality pilot (Ron Moore)</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1246447260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If anyone has seen the pilot of Ron Moore's new show, there's a (spoiler) virtual rape sequence. It's not shown, just the prelude and after effects. But as graphics and interfaces get more and more advanced, (with the holodeck being an example of the distant future possibilities) these are issues (virtual rape, virtual murder, virtual crimes) we'll continually have to face as a species, unless we can move beyond our more base instincts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If anyone has seen the pilot of Ron Moore 's new show , there 's a ( spoiler ) virtual rape sequence .
It 's not shown , just the prelude and after effects .
But as graphics and interfaces get more and more advanced , ( with the holodeck being an example of the distant future possibilities ) these are issues ( virtual rape , virtual murder , virtual crimes ) we 'll continually have to face as a species , unless we can move beyond our more base instincts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If anyone has seen the pilot of Ron Moore's new show, there's a (spoiler) virtual rape sequence.
It's not shown, just the prelude and after effects.
But as graphics and interfaces get more and more advanced, (with the holodeck being an example of the distant future possibilities) these are issues (virtual rape, virtual murder, virtual crimes) we'll continually have to face as a species, unless we can move beyond our more base instincts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539763</id>
	<title>Carmageddon</title>
	<author>ZeroExistenZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246441140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must agree with the article though, which I haven't read.</p><p>as a 15yo I've spent most of my days playing carmageddon. Now when I, as a communiting adult, see pedestrians on my way to work I tend to drive them over while I scream "woaaaaaa!" and pronounce a splat-bonus. The face of bysitters is priceless if I scream "extra points for the old lady!" when they stare in shock to the bloodcovered windshield.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must agree with the article though , which I have n't read.as a 15yo I 've spent most of my days playing carmageddon .
Now when I , as a communiting adult , see pedestrians on my way to work I tend to drive them over while I scream " woaaaaaa !
" and pronounce a splat-bonus .
The face of bysitters is priceless if I scream " extra points for the old lady !
" when they stare in shock to the bloodcovered windshield .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must agree with the article though, which I haven't read.as a 15yo I've spent most of my days playing carmageddon.
Now when I, as a communiting adult, see pedestrians on my way to work I tend to drive them over while I scream "woaaaaaa!
" and pronounce a splat-bonus.
The face of bysitters is priceless if I scream "extra points for the old lady!
" when they stare in shock to the bloodcovered windshield.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539441</id>
	<title>Missing the Point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246480200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Somehow the author missed the point about graphic violence and photorealism, especially considering Bioshock. The "fun"-part is not slaughtering human-like monsters and cute little girls throughout the game, it's rather<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/not/ doing it.</p><p>While I have no problem whatsoever killing Monsters that - if at all - look just remotely human all day and all the way long, when it comes down to more and more real looking humans - maybe I even can identify with them - I, as the player, have to make an<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/ethical/ decision. Which in return adds a whole new dimension to gameplay. We should'nt be looking at graphic violence as a risk or danger to the game industry, we should see it as a chance to create deeper, morally and ethical challenging games. Maybe with a little character-development thrown in.</p><p>Take "Fable" for an example. You can go around slaughtering as many humans as you wish and to show that you are "evil" you get horns. Its boring. I as the player have no real ethical choices to make, I don't<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/get/ as a human that I'm doing evil. I "understand" it, because I get the fuckin horns, but on an emotional level I dont<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/get/ it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/BioShock/ on the other hand has made a tiny step for me to be morally inclined in my actions in an "murder-simulator", which is a very, very good thing about the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Somehow the author missed the point about graphic violence and photorealism , especially considering Bioshock .
The " fun " -part is not slaughtering human-like monsters and cute little girls throughout the game , it 's rather /not/ doing it.While I have no problem whatsoever killing Monsters that - if at all - look just remotely human all day and all the way long , when it comes down to more and more real looking humans - maybe I even can identify with them - I , as the player , have to make an /ethical/ decision .
Which in return adds a whole new dimension to gameplay .
We should'nt be looking at graphic violence as a risk or danger to the game industry , we should see it as a chance to create deeper , morally and ethical challenging games .
Maybe with a little character-development thrown in.Take " Fable " for an example .
You can go around slaughtering as many humans as you wish and to show that you are " evil " you get horns .
Its boring .
I as the player have no real ethical choices to make , I do n't /get/ as a human that I 'm doing evil .
I " understand " it , because I get the fuckin horns , but on an emotional level I dont /get/ it .
/BioShock/ on the other hand has made a tiny step for me to be morally inclined in my actions in an " murder-simulator " , which is a very , very good thing about the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Somehow the author missed the point about graphic violence and photorealism, especially considering Bioshock.
The "fun"-part is not slaughtering human-like monsters and cute little girls throughout the game, it's rather /not/ doing it.While I have no problem whatsoever killing Monsters that - if at all - look just remotely human all day and all the way long, when it comes down to more and more real looking humans - maybe I even can identify with them - I, as the player, have to make an /ethical/ decision.
Which in return adds a whole new dimension to gameplay.
We should'nt be looking at graphic violence as a risk or danger to the game industry, we should see it as a chance to create deeper, morally and ethical challenging games.
Maybe with a little character-development thrown in.Take "Fable" for an example.
You can go around slaughtering as many humans as you wish and to show that you are "evil" you get horns.
Its boring.
I as the player have no real ethical choices to make, I don't /get/ as a human that I'm doing evil.
I "understand" it, because I get the fuckin horns, but on an emotional level I dont /get/ it.
/BioShock/ on the other hand has made a tiny step for me to be morally inclined in my actions in an "murder-simulator", which is a very, very good thing about the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547319</id>
	<title>I can certainly relate</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1246478880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can certainly relate. I played a lot of games like Doom, Quake, and Hexen as a teenager. I loved the "splatalogical" gore and the like. Likewise for UT, Doom 3, HL1 and 2, and so on.</p><p>I hadn't played many games (make that "any") since after beating Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 until recently, when I picked up Fallout 3. I was initially blown away by how realistic things had gotten - very impressive. But after a couple hours(++) of play, it became somewhat dissonant when I entered VATS on a female Raider (and then saw their head break into a dozen chunks after a successful kill). I became desensitized to it by the time I beat the game, I think, which is somewhat perplexing/disturbing in retrospect.</p><p>And then I saw all the 'nude' user-contributed mods out there. Topless painstake armor? Please, guys, no need to air your extreme fetishes. That's just disturbing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can certainly relate .
I played a lot of games like Doom , Quake , and Hexen as a teenager .
I loved the " splatalogical " gore and the like .
Likewise for UT , Doom 3 , HL1 and 2 , and so on.I had n't played many games ( make that " any " ) since after beating Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 until recently , when I picked up Fallout 3 .
I was initially blown away by how realistic things had gotten - very impressive .
But after a couple hours ( + + ) of play , it became somewhat dissonant when I entered VATS on a female Raider ( and then saw their head break into a dozen chunks after a successful kill ) .
I became desensitized to it by the time I beat the game , I think , which is somewhat perplexing/disturbing in retrospect.And then I saw all the 'nude ' user-contributed mods out there .
Topless painstake armor ?
Please , guys , no need to air your extreme fetishes .
That 's just disturbing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can certainly relate.
I played a lot of games like Doom, Quake, and Hexen as a teenager.
I loved the "splatalogical" gore and the like.
Likewise for UT, Doom 3, HL1 and 2, and so on.I hadn't played many games (make that "any") since after beating Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 until recently, when I picked up Fallout 3.
I was initially blown away by how realistic things had gotten - very impressive.
But after a couple hours(++) of play, it became somewhat dissonant when I entered VATS on a female Raider (and then saw their head break into a dozen chunks after a successful kill).
I became desensitized to it by the time I beat the game, I think, which is somewhat perplexing/disturbing in retrospect.And then I saw all the 'nude' user-contributed mods out there.
Topless painstake armor?
Please, guys, no need to air your extreme fetishes.
That's just disturbing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547013</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Lost Race</author>
	<datestamp>1246477860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a particularly vivid memory of going to the theater to see "Total Recall" (because it was based on a Philip K Dick story) and watching the kids in front of me cheering and howling with laughter when a bystander was graphically ripped apart by gunfire in one of the fight scenes. I pretty much stopped going to the theater after that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a particularly vivid memory of going to the theater to see " Total Recall " ( because it was based on a Philip K Dick story ) and watching the kids in front of me cheering and howling with laughter when a bystander was graphically ripped apart by gunfire in one of the fight scenes .
I pretty much stopped going to the theater after that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a particularly vivid memory of going to the theater to see "Total Recall" (because it was based on a Philip K Dick story) and watching the kids in front of me cheering and howling with laughter when a bystander was graphically ripped apart by gunfire in one of the fight scenes.
I pretty much stopped going to the theater after that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</id>
	<title>I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>saladpuncher</author>
	<datestamp>1246391220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have killed more people than Hitler. It's true.
I have murdered millions of Nazis and slaughtered as many dragons. I have raped Native Americans and killed hundreds of thousands of cops. I have killed aliens that looked like pigs dressed as cops. I have destroyed feminism by flashing cash at strippers. I have committed genocide. I have wiped the earth clean of barbarians, Romans, Egyptians, Germans, and the Mongols. I have brought sword to creatures great and small because they may be carrying gold. I have killed creatures and then thrown away anything they were carrying because I did not deem it worthy.  I have lied, cheated and double crossed denizens of the wasteland, a fairy kingdom, an ancient alien race and time travelers. I have shot mutants and bounty hunters in the groin and face. After killing someone else who I have never met and who had done me no wrong I crouched over his dead body and tea bagged him. I have enslaved a star faring race and then traded those slaves for military secrets. I have spied on other countries, planets and star systems and sabotaged numerous public works to cause strife and disorder. I have starved cities and brought whips down on my workers so that they may finish great works in my name before someone else did the same. I have stabbed kings and rezoned miles of pristine wilderness into ash spewing city hell holes. I have built nuclear reactors and then let them go critical so that I may laugh at the death toll and then, while the people were still putting out the atomic fires, I have unleashed Godzilla and a hurricane onto them. I have built swimming pools and then removed the exit ladders to watch people drown. I have smashed buildings to grab people inside and then eat them.
<br>
<br>
All of these simulations have trained me well in the off chance I am ever presented with the ability to be an omnipotent, immortal, time traveling, alien, city building, world conquering, sword wielding, post apocalyptic, giant fire breathing, car jacking last great hope for humanity...who also happens to be a complete and total bastard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have killed more people than Hitler .
It 's true .
I have murdered millions of Nazis and slaughtered as many dragons .
I have raped Native Americans and killed hundreds of thousands of cops .
I have killed aliens that looked like pigs dressed as cops .
I have destroyed feminism by flashing cash at strippers .
I have committed genocide .
I have wiped the earth clean of barbarians , Romans , Egyptians , Germans , and the Mongols .
I have brought sword to creatures great and small because they may be carrying gold .
I have killed creatures and then thrown away anything they were carrying because I did not deem it worthy .
I have lied , cheated and double crossed denizens of the wasteland , a fairy kingdom , an ancient alien race and time travelers .
I have shot mutants and bounty hunters in the groin and face .
After killing someone else who I have never met and who had done me no wrong I crouched over his dead body and tea bagged him .
I have enslaved a star faring race and then traded those slaves for military secrets .
I have spied on other countries , planets and star systems and sabotaged numerous public works to cause strife and disorder .
I have starved cities and brought whips down on my workers so that they may finish great works in my name before someone else did the same .
I have stabbed kings and rezoned miles of pristine wilderness into ash spewing city hell holes .
I have built nuclear reactors and then let them go critical so that I may laugh at the death toll and then , while the people were still putting out the atomic fires , I have unleashed Godzilla and a hurricane onto them .
I have built swimming pools and then removed the exit ladders to watch people drown .
I have smashed buildings to grab people inside and then eat them .
All of these simulations have trained me well in the off chance I am ever presented with the ability to be an omnipotent , immortal , time traveling , alien , city building , world conquering , sword wielding , post apocalyptic , giant fire breathing , car jacking last great hope for humanity...who also happens to be a complete and total bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have killed more people than Hitler.
It's true.
I have murdered millions of Nazis and slaughtered as many dragons.
I have raped Native Americans and killed hundreds of thousands of cops.
I have killed aliens that looked like pigs dressed as cops.
I have destroyed feminism by flashing cash at strippers.
I have committed genocide.
I have wiped the earth clean of barbarians, Romans, Egyptians, Germans, and the Mongols.
I have brought sword to creatures great and small because they may be carrying gold.
I have killed creatures and then thrown away anything they were carrying because I did not deem it worthy.
I have lied, cheated and double crossed denizens of the wasteland, a fairy kingdom, an ancient alien race and time travelers.
I have shot mutants and bounty hunters in the groin and face.
After killing someone else who I have never met and who had done me no wrong I crouched over his dead body and tea bagged him.
I have enslaved a star faring race and then traded those slaves for military secrets.
I have spied on other countries, planets and star systems and sabotaged numerous public works to cause strife and disorder.
I have starved cities and brought whips down on my workers so that they may finish great works in my name before someone else did the same.
I have stabbed kings and rezoned miles of pristine wilderness into ash spewing city hell holes.
I have built nuclear reactors and then let them go critical so that I may laugh at the death toll and then, while the people were still putting out the atomic fires, I have unleashed Godzilla and a hurricane onto them.
I have built swimming pools and then removed the exit ladders to watch people drown.
I have smashed buildings to grab people inside and then eat them.
All of these simulations have trained me well in the off chance I am ever presented with the ability to be an omnipotent, immortal, time traveling, alien, city building, world conquering, sword wielding, post apocalyptic, giant fire breathing, car jacking last great hope for humanity...who also happens to be a complete and total bastard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049</id>
	<title>False premise</title>
	<author>another\_twilight</author>
	<datestamp>1246388760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article;</p><p>"With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others. Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering."</p><p>Perhaps the part of us that finds violence towards an on-screen representation of someone or something, but I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events. The implication that increasingly realistic graphics are somehow going to cross this divide is neither argued nor proven in this article.</p><p>Games are designed as entertainment. Entertainment is not realistic. No matter what the interface (I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life. It is this very knowledge that is part of what makes games enjoyable. We are freed of the normal consequences of our actions, free to explore a new environment, to discover the rules of cause-and-effect and to enjoy the difference between these and the world we normally live in.</p><p>Perhaps when we have the tech to seamlessly mimic reality there may grow a market for entertainment that deliberately blurs the line between Real and Game, but that relies on both an increase in technical realism and a <i>deliberate</i> move away from what makes a game a game.</p><p>Perhaps the author has forgotten what it means to play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article ; " With each act of violence , a piece of us grows cold , calloused , and uncaring towards the well being of others .
Repeat that , and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering .
" Perhaps the part of us that finds violence towards an on-screen representation of someone or something , but I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events .
The implication that increasingly realistic graphics are somehow going to cross this divide is neither argued nor proven in this article.Games are designed as entertainment .
Entertainment is not realistic .
No matter what the interface ( I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup ) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life .
It is this very knowledge that is part of what makes games enjoyable .
We are freed of the normal consequences of our actions , free to explore a new environment , to discover the rules of cause-and-effect and to enjoy the difference between these and the world we normally live in.Perhaps when we have the tech to seamlessly mimic reality there may grow a market for entertainment that deliberately blurs the line between Real and Game , but that relies on both an increase in technical realism and a deliberate move away from what makes a game a game.Perhaps the author has forgotten what it means to play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article;"With each act of violence, a piece of us grows cold, calloused, and uncaring towards the well being of others.
Repeat that, and we become slowly desensitized to pain and suffering.
"Perhaps the part of us that finds violence towards an on-screen representation of someone or something, but I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events.
The implication that increasingly realistic graphics are somehow going to cross this divide is neither argued nor proven in this article.Games are designed as entertainment.
Entertainment is not realistic.
No matter what the interface (I will even allow some futuristic neural hookup) there are going to be clues and cues that what you are engaged in is not Real Life.
It is this very knowledge that is part of what makes games enjoyable.
We are freed of the normal consequences of our actions, free to explore a new environment, to discover the rules of cause-and-effect and to enjoy the difference between these and the world we normally live in.Perhaps when we have the tech to seamlessly mimic reality there may grow a market for entertainment that deliberately blurs the line between Real and Game, but that relies on both an increase in technical realism and a deliberate move away from what makes a game a game.Perhaps the author has forgotten what it means to play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538971</id>
	<title>Ban how to host a murder while you're at it.</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1246387980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry but this is very very silly.</p><p>We've had violent games and movies for a long time now. Take a look at the blood and gore in horror films. It currently does and will continue to outdo any realism a game can provide for some time to come.</p><p>Take a look at games where we play murderers. How to host a murder/murder mystery nights. What are you going to do next. Ban Murder She Wrote because some idiot might decide to copy one of the murders?</p><p>The solution is simple. You need to educate children about the difference between fiction and reality. It's really not that hard.</p><p>Will there be people who copy the fiction and commit murder? Sure. They're mentally unstable and would find some other reason to do it anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry but this is very very silly.We 've had violent games and movies for a long time now .
Take a look at the blood and gore in horror films .
It currently does and will continue to outdo any realism a game can provide for some time to come.Take a look at games where we play murderers .
How to host a murder/murder mystery nights .
What are you going to do next .
Ban Murder She Wrote because some idiot might decide to copy one of the murders ? The solution is simple .
You need to educate children about the difference between fiction and reality .
It 's really not that hard.Will there be people who copy the fiction and commit murder ?
Sure. They 're mentally unstable and would find some other reason to do it anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry but this is very very silly.We've had violent games and movies for a long time now.
Take a look at the blood and gore in horror films.
It currently does and will continue to outdo any realism a game can provide for some time to come.Take a look at games where we play murderers.
How to host a murder/murder mystery nights.
What are you going to do next.
Ban Murder She Wrote because some idiot might decide to copy one of the murders?The solution is simple.
You need to educate children about the difference between fiction and reality.
It's really not that hard.Will there be people who copy the fiction and commit murder?
Sure. They're mentally unstable and would find some other reason to do it anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540765</id>
	<title>On the other hand.</title>
	<author>Steauengeglase</author>
	<datestamp>1246454400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I think the position is pure drama king, all of you will be screwed when I, a forgotten octogenarian who can only control his body with a d-pad and eight buttons, make my way out of the Alzheimer wing. Just look out for the short guy who is warning everyone about zombie Michael Jackson and the hamburger lady, he may be armed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think the position is pure drama king , all of you will be screwed when I , a forgotten octogenarian who can only control his body with a d-pad and eight buttons , make my way out of the Alzheimer wing .
Just look out for the short guy who is warning everyone about zombie Michael Jackson and the hamburger lady , he may be armed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think the position is pure drama king, all of you will be screwed when I, a forgotten octogenarian who can only control his body with a d-pad and eight buttons, make my way out of the Alzheimer wing.
Just look out for the short guy who is warning everyone about zombie Michael Jackson and the hamburger lady, he may be armed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28555909</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246538580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And to think, you did all that while not wearing pants!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And to think , you did all that while not wearing pants !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And to think, you did all that while not wearing pants!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28551621</id>
	<title>Lets all stop this thinking right...NOW</title>
	<author>Provocateur</author>
	<datestamp>1246450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For as long as we have to prepare to do battle with other countries/planets there should always be training simulators. That said, let us not debate this any further, lest I be deprived of that as-yet unwritten simulator that lets me become a cheerleader --- that at night wields a chainsaw against zombies .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For as long as we have to prepare to do battle with other countries/planets there should always be training simulators .
That said , let us not debate this any further , lest I be deprived of that as-yet unwritten simulator that lets me become a cheerleader --- that at night wields a chainsaw against zombies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For as long as we have to prepare to do battle with other countries/planets there should always be training simulators.
That said, let us not debate this any further, lest I be deprived of that as-yet unwritten simulator that lets me become a cheerleader --- that at night wields a chainsaw against zombies .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543137</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>lordtrickster</author>
	<datestamp>1246466400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
 The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling. Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.</p><p>Brutalization, or &#226;oevalues inculcation,&#226; is what happens at boot camp. Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked, and dressed alike, losing all vestiges of individuality. You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment. In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.</p></div><p>Um, I went through US Army boot camp in '99, and this statement no longer applies (it may have during Vietnam), at least in my experience.  Flutter kicks (a common exercise) and long marches were the most brutal thing inflicted upon us.  I spent half the time in a classroom, where morality and law were emphasized.  Drill sergeants were not permitted to inflict violence upon us.  My own actually crossed the line and hit me, and was demoted and removed from the training role.</p><p>The Army may have screwed things up during Vietnam, but they've gone a long way towards fixing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The training methods the military uses are brutalization , classical conditioning , operant conditioning , and role modeling .
Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children , but without the safeguards.Brutalization , or   oevalues inculcation ,   is what happens at boot camp .
Your head is shaved , you are herded together naked , and dressed alike , losing all vestiges of individuality .
You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment .
In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.Um , I went through US Army boot camp in '99 , and this statement no longer applies ( it may have during Vietnam ) , at least in my experience .
Flutter kicks ( a common exercise ) and long marches were the most brutal thing inflicted upon us .
I spent half the time in a classroom , where morality and law were emphasized .
Drill sergeants were not permitted to inflict violence upon us .
My own actually crossed the line and hit me , and was demoted and removed from the training role.The Army may have screwed things up during Vietnam , but they 've gone a long way towards fixing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 The training methods the military uses are brutalization, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and role modeling.
Let us explain these and then observe how the media does the same thing to our children, but without the safeguards.Brutalization, or âoevalues inculcation,â is what happens at boot camp.
Your head is shaved, you are herded together naked, and dressed alike, losing all vestiges of individuality.
You are trained relentlessly in a total immersion environment.
In the end you embrace violence and discipline and accept it as a normal and essential survival skill in your brutal new world.Um, I went through US Army boot camp in '99, and this statement no longer applies (it may have during Vietnam), at least in my experience.
Flutter kicks (a common exercise) and long marches were the most brutal thing inflicted upon us.
I spent half the time in a classroom, where morality and law were emphasized.
Drill sergeants were not permitted to inflict violence upon us.
My own actually crossed the line and hit me, and was demoted and removed from the training role.The Army may have screwed things up during Vietnam, but they've gone a long way towards fixing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539333</id>
	<title>More moral beings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246478400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If video games continue to blur the lines between the real and unreal, we need only instill a more intrinsic sense of right and wrong into people.</p><p>Further, we may need video games to have "watermarks" once they hit a certain level of realism, ie the matrix type, to help people distinguish between a video game and reality. Watermarks could just be marks in impossible places, like a giant wolf fighting a flamingo in the sky, or by making it so the game breaks the laws of physics in order to show how virtual it is. At the very least make sure they're fighting impossible monsters or possibly robots.</p><p>Before games are indistinguishable from reality, we need to make sure we keep them separate. Or, we need to make it so that you'd never do things in a game that you'd do in real life. I'd prefer the first because video games are a fantasy, an escape and a challenge. They're not supposed to be real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If video games continue to blur the lines between the real and unreal , we need only instill a more intrinsic sense of right and wrong into people.Further , we may need video games to have " watermarks " once they hit a certain level of realism , ie the matrix type , to help people distinguish between a video game and reality .
Watermarks could just be marks in impossible places , like a giant wolf fighting a flamingo in the sky , or by making it so the game breaks the laws of physics in order to show how virtual it is .
At the very least make sure they 're fighting impossible monsters or possibly robots.Before games are indistinguishable from reality , we need to make sure we keep them separate .
Or , we need to make it so that you 'd never do things in a game that you 'd do in real life .
I 'd prefer the first because video games are a fantasy , an escape and a challenge .
They 're not supposed to be real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If video games continue to blur the lines between the real and unreal, we need only instill a more intrinsic sense of right and wrong into people.Further, we may need video games to have "watermarks" once they hit a certain level of realism, ie the matrix type, to help people distinguish between a video game and reality.
Watermarks could just be marks in impossible places, like a giant wolf fighting a flamingo in the sky, or by making it so the game breaks the laws of physics in order to show how virtual it is.
At the very least make sure they're fighting impossible monsters or possibly robots.Before games are indistinguishable from reality, we need to make sure we keep them separate.
Or, we need to make it so that you'd never do things in a game that you'd do in real life.
I'd prefer the first because video games are a fantasy, an escape and a challenge.
They're not supposed to be real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543113</id>
	<title>Re:I had to get my training from somewhere</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1246466340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok you win an award... for one of the best posts ever made on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok you win an award... for one of the best posts ever made on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok you win an award... for one of the best posts ever made on /.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539295</id>
	<title>Murder vs defense</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1246391640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In most games, there is a clearly defined good vs evil arrangement. I dont think many would view the baddies in Bioshock as anything other than baddies. In fact, it seems there are three categories of bad guys in games that are always a safe bet that people wont mind killing. Zombies, Nazis, and aliens. Some games break out of that and have a morally gray story, especially RPGs. Fallout 3 for example. You can be a saint and save Megaton from the bomb, or blow them up in the first 30 minutes. I always tend to be the good guy myself, I just dont see the appeal of being evil, even in a game. Taking it a bit further, games like Manhunt (never seen it nor played it I might note) and GTA (same, no interest) are an even darker gray. I dont know squat about Manhunt, but from the little I do I know I dont want to know more. I think wanting to play that crap already shows signs of being a sick bastard, not that its going to turn you into one out of an angel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In most games , there is a clearly defined good vs evil arrangement .
I dont think many would view the baddies in Bioshock as anything other than baddies .
In fact , it seems there are three categories of bad guys in games that are always a safe bet that people wont mind killing .
Zombies , Nazis , and aliens .
Some games break out of that and have a morally gray story , especially RPGs .
Fallout 3 for example .
You can be a saint and save Megaton from the bomb , or blow them up in the first 30 minutes .
I always tend to be the good guy myself , I just dont see the appeal of being evil , even in a game .
Taking it a bit further , games like Manhunt ( never seen it nor played it I might note ) and GTA ( same , no interest ) are an even darker gray .
I dont know squat about Manhunt , but from the little I do I know I dont want to know more .
I think wanting to play that crap already shows signs of being a sick bastard , not that its going to turn you into one out of an angel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In most games, there is a clearly defined good vs evil arrangement.
I dont think many would view the baddies in Bioshock as anything other than baddies.
In fact, it seems there are three categories of bad guys in games that are always a safe bet that people wont mind killing.
Zombies, Nazis, and aliens.
Some games break out of that and have a morally gray story, especially RPGs.
Fallout 3 for example.
You can be a saint and save Megaton from the bomb, or blow them up in the first 30 minutes.
I always tend to be the good guy myself, I just dont see the appeal of being evil, even in a game.
Taking it a bit further, games like Manhunt (never seen it nor played it I might note) and GTA (same, no interest) are an even darker gray.
I dont know squat about Manhunt, but from the little I do I know I dont want to know more.
I think wanting to play that crap already shows signs of being a sick bastard, not that its going to turn you into one out of an angel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541637</id>
	<title>Re:Relevant quote</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246459980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>TV has brought murder back into the home, where it belongs.</i></p><p>I watched <i>Die Hard IV</i> again last week, and there is a relevant scene at the beginning of the movie. One nerd is playing a violent video game while another was doing something with his PC in the same room. His monitor started getting flakey, and he demanded that the other guy keep his hands off. He hits "delete" and the house explodes; the bad guys had filled his computer with C-4 and rigged it to explode when the delete key was pressed.</p><p>It was almost as if they were parodying this very debate. It's funny how the murder rate actually went down when games like Quake and Unreal Tourney came out. Coincidence? Of course, but it puts the lie to the "fact" that violent games make people violent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TV has brought murder back into the home , where it belongs.I watched Die Hard IV again last week , and there is a relevant scene at the beginning of the movie .
One nerd is playing a violent video game while another was doing something with his PC in the same room .
His monitor started getting flakey , and he demanded that the other guy keep his hands off .
He hits " delete " and the house explodes ; the bad guys had filled his computer with C-4 and rigged it to explode when the delete key was pressed.It was almost as if they were parodying this very debate .
It 's funny how the murder rate actually went down when games like Quake and Unreal Tourney came out .
Coincidence ? Of course , but it puts the lie to the " fact " that violent games make people violent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TV has brought murder back into the home, where it belongs.I watched Die Hard IV again last week, and there is a relevant scene at the beginning of the movie.
One nerd is playing a violent video game while another was doing something with his PC in the same room.
His monitor started getting flakey, and he demanded that the other guy keep his hands off.
He hits "delete" and the house explodes; the bad guys had filled his computer with C-4 and rigged it to explode when the delete key was pressed.It was almost as if they were parodying this very debate.
It's funny how the murder rate actually went down when games like Quake and Unreal Tourney came out.
Coincidence? Of course, but it puts the lie to the "fact" that violent games make people violent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538949</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539637</id>
	<title>A note on bioshock:</title>
	<author>kage.j</author>
	<datestamp>1246439520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can save the girls! I mean, are you just gonna let them sit in the game and die?
<br>
<br>I beat it once by saving them, then out of curiosity I went in and "extracted the worm" from them (AKA KILLED THEM)
<br>
<br>I may be desensitized, I couldn't kill them the first time around...but the second time was easy ; )</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can save the girls !
I mean , are you just gon na let them sit in the game and die ?
I beat it once by saving them , then out of curiosity I went in and " extracted the worm " from them ( AKA KILLED THEM ) I may be desensitized , I could n't kill them the first time around...but the second time was easy ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can save the girls!
I mean, are you just gonna let them sit in the game and die?
I beat it once by saving them, then out of curiosity I went in and "extracted the worm" from them (AKA KILLED THEM)

I may be desensitized, I couldn't kill them the first time around...but the second time was easy ; )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28548009</id>
	<title>Re:Unpopular but interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246481040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So where's my bayonet and comfort girls......BITCH?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So where 's my bayonet and comfort girls......BITCH ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where's my bayonet and comfort girls......BITCH?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540761</id>
	<title>Bioshock? Really?</title>
	<author>singingjim1</author>
	<datestamp>1246454340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bioshock is a cool game with cartoon violence. I've seen more violence in a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Someone needs to let go of their binky and grow a pair. I'm waiting for games like Bioshock times 10 on the realistic graphic violence scale - and I let flies out of the door instead of "Baracking" them. It's just a game just like Saw and it's ilk are just movies. I understand children not being exposed to these games at too young of an age, but ultimately they are still just games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bioshock is a cool game with cartoon violence .
I 've seen more violence in a Bugs Bunny cartoon .
Someone needs to let go of their binky and grow a pair .
I 'm waiting for games like Bioshock times 10 on the realistic graphic violence scale - and I let flies out of the door instead of " Baracking " them .
It 's just a game just like Saw and it 's ilk are just movies .
I understand children not being exposed to these games at too young of an age , but ultimately they are still just games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bioshock is a cool game with cartoon violence.
I've seen more violence in a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
Someone needs to let go of their binky and grow a pair.
I'm waiting for games like Bioshock times 10 on the realistic graphic violence scale - and I let flies out of the door instead of "Baracking" them.
It's just a game just like Saw and it's ilk are just movies.
I understand children not being exposed to these games at too young of an age, but ultimately they are still just games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539561</id>
	<title>Film: Avalon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246438800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The film Avalon describes violence in games nicely. It is a film about a "hero" in an illegal computer game that has a mysterious "final" level. Below that level, all people dying explode in a cloud of pixels. In the final level, they bleed and die realistically. That is where the game stops being funny or even being a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The film Avalon describes violence in games nicely .
It is a film about a " hero " in an illegal computer game that has a mysterious " final " level .
Below that level , all people dying explode in a cloud of pixels .
In the final level , they bleed and die realistically .
That is where the game stops being funny or even being a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The film Avalon describes violence in games nicely.
It is a film about a "hero" in an illegal computer game that has a mysterious "final" level.
Below that level, all people dying explode in a cloud of pixels.
In the final level, they bleed and die realistically.
That is where the game stops being funny or even being a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543579</id>
	<title>Re:You don't need BioShock...</title>
	<author>dwpro</author>
	<datestamp>1246467660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Torture as opposed to just killing it and taking its loot like all the other creatures, gee, what a morally unacceptable inclusion.  As an aside, you don't HAVE to do the quest, you can take it or leave it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Torture as opposed to just killing it and taking its loot like all the other creatures , gee , what a morally unacceptable inclusion .
As an aside , you do n't HAVE to do the quest , you can take it or leave it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Torture as opposed to just killing it and taking its loot like all the other creatures, gee, what a morally unacceptable inclusion.
As an aside, you don't HAVE to do the quest, you can take it or leave it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539319</id>
	<title>draw the line</title>
	<author>Strange Ranger</author>
	<datestamp>1246391880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I draw the line at servers where gruesome graphic murder is OK but swear words are not.<br>
Think of the children? Seriously??<br>
That's just too messed up to support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I draw the line at servers where gruesome graphic murder is OK but swear words are not .
Think of the children ?
Seriously ? ? That 's just too messed up to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I draw the line at servers where gruesome graphic murder is OK but swear words are not.
Think of the children?
Seriously??
That's just too messed up to support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538949</id>
	<title>Relevant quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246387680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Relevant quote that I saw on the bottom of slashdot a few days ago, this from Alfred Hitchcock:<br> <br>
TV has brought murder back into the home, where it belongs.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relevant quote that I saw on the bottom of slashdot a few days ago , this from Alfred Hitchcock : TV has brought murder back into the home , where it belongs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relevant quote that I saw on the bottom of slashdot a few days ago, this from Alfred Hitchcock: 
TV has brought murder back into the home, where it belongs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539387</id>
	<title>Perhapss most CAN'T understand...</title>
	<author>gohmifune</author>
	<datestamp>1246479300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Video games gratify and glorify violence. Period. When headshots are rewarded with easier challenges and further progression, when there are no options to not kill, when killing gratuitously is a function required to progress a story or an experience, then it can not be argued that games provide positive reinforcement.<br><br>In the past year, I've played three games: Gun, Billy Hatcher, and Shadow of the Colossus. In Gun, you can scalp innocents in town and they scream, BEGGING YOU not to do it. In Billy Hatcher, there in practically no violence as even the grunts get away. In Shadow of the Colossus, you have to proactively kill sixteen living creatures which do not bother you for absolutely no net benefit to you as a person, or your character. There are even a couple of instances where the creatures do not fight back.<br><br>Needless to say, of the the Billy Hatcher was the most boring and less stimulating of the three, despite it being a great game..<br><br>We, the players, have become desensitized to the point that there is no longer cognitive dissonance between the ingame logic which allows or compels me to kill innocents and benefit compared to the real  world logic which doesn't allow me to. Instead of saying that it isn't bad, that it isn't real, shouldn't we be asking ourselves how is it that we are unable to recognize it as real in the moment we are doing it.<br><br>We've become so far removed from it that games where one does not kill do not sell equally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Video games gratify and glorify violence .
Period. When headshots are rewarded with easier challenges and further progression , when there are no options to not kill , when killing gratuitously is a function required to progress a story or an experience , then it can not be argued that games provide positive reinforcement.In the past year , I 've played three games : Gun , Billy Hatcher , and Shadow of the Colossus .
In Gun , you can scalp innocents in town and they scream , BEGGING YOU not to do it .
In Billy Hatcher , there in practically no violence as even the grunts get away .
In Shadow of the Colossus , you have to proactively kill sixteen living creatures which do not bother you for absolutely no net benefit to you as a person , or your character .
There are even a couple of instances where the creatures do not fight back.Needless to say , of the the Billy Hatcher was the most boring and less stimulating of the three , despite it being a great game..We , the players , have become desensitized to the point that there is no longer cognitive dissonance between the ingame logic which allows or compels me to kill innocents and benefit compared to the real world logic which does n't allow me to .
Instead of saying that it is n't bad , that it is n't real , should n't we be asking ourselves how is it that we are unable to recognize it as real in the moment we are doing it.We 've become so far removed from it that games where one does not kill do not sell equally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video games gratify and glorify violence.
Period. When headshots are rewarded with easier challenges and further progression, when there are no options to not kill, when killing gratuitously is a function required to progress a story or an experience, then it can not be argued that games provide positive reinforcement.In the past year, I've played three games: Gun, Billy Hatcher, and Shadow of the Colossus.
In Gun, you can scalp innocents in town and they scream, BEGGING YOU not to do it.
In Billy Hatcher, there in practically no violence as even the grunts get away.
In Shadow of the Colossus, you have to proactively kill sixteen living creatures which do not bother you for absolutely no net benefit to you as a person, or your character.
There are even a couple of instances where the creatures do not fight back.Needless to say, of the the Billy Hatcher was the most boring and less stimulating of the three, despite it being a great game..We, the players, have become desensitized to the point that there is no longer cognitive dissonance between the ingame logic which allows or compels me to kill innocents and benefit compared to the real  world logic which doesn't allow me to.
Instead of saying that it isn't bad, that it isn't real, shouldn't we be asking ourselves how is it that we are unable to recognize it as real in the moment we are doing it.We've become so far removed from it that games where one does not kill do not sell equally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547567</id>
	<title>Re:Desensitized?</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1246479840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but if you were on an airplane and the pilot died, and a teenager volunteered to fly the plane with thousands of hours of Playstation time under his belt, would you take it seriously?</p></div><p>I realise I'm picking out the least important bit of the comment to reply to, but... Yeah, I would, at least a little more so than someone with even less 'experience'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but if you were on an airplane and the pilot died , and a teenager volunteered to fly the plane with thousands of hours of Playstation time under his belt , would you take it seriously ? I realise I 'm picking out the least important bit of the comment to reply to , but... Yeah , I would , at least a little more so than someone with even less 'experience' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but if you were on an airplane and the pilot died, and a teenager volunteered to fly the plane with thousands of hours of Playstation time under his belt, would you take it seriously?I realise I'm picking out the least important bit of the comment to reply to, but... Yeah, I would, at least a little more so than someone with even less 'experience'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539265</id>
	<title>Re:False premise</title>
	<author>palndrumm</author>
	<datestamp>1246391220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events.</p></div><p>Read the article linked to in <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1287991&amp;cid=28539055" title="slashdot.org">this comment above</a> [slashdot.org].  While it's by no means conclusive evidence, it is does suggest there may be some kind of connection worth investigating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events.Read the article linked to in this comment above [ slashdot.org ] .
While it 's by no means conclusive evidence , it is does suggest there may be some kind of connection worth investigating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see any evidence that this translates to a callousness towards real people or events.Read the article linked to in this comment above [slashdot.org].
While it's by no means conclusive evidence, it is does suggest there may be some kind of connection worth investigating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28555589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28548009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28545141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28551551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28554831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28544687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_01_0322237_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28555589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28547013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540001
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28548009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28544687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28545141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539155
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543579
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28554831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541511
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28542277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539593
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539319
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28538971
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28541629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28543535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28551551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28540113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_01_0322237.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_01_0322237.28539177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
