dimreepr

Can you rephrase the question, please.

I think it’s certainly possible given the following: Mind controlling fungus Mind controlling parasites Mind controlling virus

OK

I realise this is an old debate and this ground has been raked over many times. I was always in the camp that at a fundamental level we all know the difference between real and fantasy violence. However as these games become ever more realistic, coupled with the tendencies for some parents to be over-protective and keep their children within sight. As in modern military training that seek to desensitise the natural aversion most of us have to violence. I think there may be a danger that over immersion in these worlds could be creating people who haven’t been exposed to real life situations in which they learn the negative consequences of going too far.

How immersed was your gaming? Did you also play outside with friends?

I grew up without such games and I’m very aware of the difference between fantasy world violence and real world violence. After reading this story: I began to wonder if I would be quite so sure of the difference, had I grown up immersed in such games; rather than playing war games with my friends in the real world where the consequences are obvious such as throwing stones or hitting others with my stick gun. I wonder if the switch that’s turned off in socio-paths is being turned off in children who play these games, at what age is this switch set, if it’s settable?

Given what hypothesis means, sometimes no reply is the best response.

Here.

Why are you so concerned? If you get neg rep then the chances are you’ve made a mistake, in which case, learn from it; otherwise you’ve posted something objectionable then just live with it.

Basically, that’s my point. I didn’t.

It seems we have come full circle:

I imagine he’d seek revenge, and then revenge for his act would, no doubt, be sought; where do you suppose that road ends? I have never suggested forgiving means never defending; revenge doesn't equal defence.

I’m not suggesting the road to peace is an easy one, there’s many a pitfall and dead end but they’ll have to take the first step in order to reach the end. No it doesn’t, but it might mean they get to eat what food they do get, rather than being killed or injured whilst playing in the street.

The freedom to live without fear of persecution, to live contently is independent of finance; do you really think this conflict can learn nothing from this tome?

They managed it in WWI and WWII and many others; whilst god was certainly involved in WWI, he was far less evident in WWII. God maybe a convenient excuse but god is seldom the reason and even when god is involved it’s intolerance that rules the day.

John, how often is it the lack of tolerance rather than the idea, or lack thereof, that brings more deaths?

I’m an atheist, so of course I don’t think there’s a god, in any sense, but that doesn’t mean I would seek to deny the comfort such an idea brings to the vast majority of believers. Of course some religious ideas/interpretations are extreme, but then all societies, however structured, would produce extreme ideas. Maybe we should just tolerate those that think differently and accept the possibility, however remote, that their ideas are better.

I suggest that you don’t understand the concept that control is illusory, but agreed there’s nothing further to be gained. Edit/ Maybe you should read 'Long walk to freedom' by Nelson Mandela.

That’s only true when there’s no victim or persecuted prisoners.

I can prove that some people think they can.

Maybe, but they trusted that surrender didn’t mean their deaths and still they forgave enough to not seek physical revenge; neither trust nor forgiveness need be an absolute to maintain or inspire peace.

It's possible to stand with humans and god.

They trusted enough to lay down their arms and forgave enough to not seek revenge.

You think they jumped for an underwhelming reason?

Anyone desperate enough to attack an overwhelming force wouldn’t do so without an overwhelming reason.