A CT Town Is Burning Violent Video Games In Response To The Newtown shooting

[Hugo Chavez]

the EPA was drastically slashed during the bush/cheney years (funding cut to all EPA enforcement agencies by 50%)... who's going to stop them

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/bushfailure.html

I doubt anyone is going to stop it.  Even though it's probably even illegal under local ordinances.  I'm just pointing out how completely stupid these people must be to decide on having a toxic bonfire to protest video games.  Brilliant, let's pollute the shit out of our local area as a protest lol...  I wouldn't want to be down wind of the burn.

[WOOO]

[

well managed and bureaucratic are oxymorons...

so you have no personal responsibility in protecting yourself?

its up to the govt to protect you at every turn?

By definition. When one enters a social contract one looks for protection as a group.


quote author=OzmO link=topic=453748.msg6528094#msg6528094 date=1357346330]
really credible link?
[/quote]

That's credible enough for me. Google the question for more info.

[WOOO]

Here's 1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901759.html

Bush crushed government regulators to the disservice of the americant people

[tonymctones]

[
By definition. When one enters a social contract one looks for protection as a group.


quote author=OzmO link=topic=453748.msg6528094#msg6528094 date=1357346330]
really credible link?


That's credible enough for me. Google the question for more info.

and where in that social contract does it say that the govt should protect you at every turn and individuals have no personal responsibility?

a social contract does not mean total subjugation to the govt...

[333386]

Dave Grossman: First-Person Shooter Videogames Should be Banned
 January 4 | Katechon

Posted on Friday, January 04, 2013 8:43:51 PM by Katechon





The first juvenile mass-murder happened for the FIRST TIME in recorded human history in the late 1970s, in California. In 500 years of gun-powder combat, not once had a juvenile committed multiple homicide. We had a couple in the 1980s, and now it's out of control. So what happened?



It's Pavlog Dog, said Lt. Col. Lt. Col. Grossman: our youth is being conditioned from childhood by videogames to be "First-Person Shooters, (FPS) and to associate killing, human death and suffering with reward and pleasure.







Videogames are not "games"; they are mass-murder simulators, Grossman says.



Our kids are being wired from childhood by hyper-violent and realistic video games to be brainless killers, precognitively loaded to be potential murderers. And if videogames are training them to be killers, the movies and many TV shows are the propaganda machines of the gang-bangers.



In videogames, kids are being rewarded to kill, but without any of the benefits coming from the disciplinary training of the Army. And this rewarding response to killing another (virtual) human being deactivates our innate resistance to murdering.



Everyone is born with a deep resistance to killing any member of one’s own species; and this resistance is a key factor in combat.



Most participants in close combat are “frightened out of their wits,” says Grossman. But proper operant conditioning reliably influences the midbrain processing of a frightened human being.





Fire drills condition terrified school children to respond properly during a fire. Conditioning in flight simulators enables frightened pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations.



Once the bullets start flying, combattants stop thinking with the forebrain (cerebrum) and start thinking with the primitive midbrain. The limbic system and the hypotalamus are in action while killing; whilst the rational brain is deactivated. But even the midbrain processing powerfully resists to the killing of one’s own species; it's a survival mechanism preventing a species from destroying itself.



To overcome this innate resistance to killing other human beings, the military and law enforcement communities have developped operantly conditioned devices using killing simulators in training. Turning killing into a conditionned response.



By the middle of the XXth century, the Human Resources Research Office (HumRRO) of the US Army pioneered a revolution in combat training. This paradigmatic shift would lead warriors firing at bullseye targets to warriors firing at man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit.









Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall observed that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. When left to their own devices, 80 percent of the combatants appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.



But murder simulators produced a dramatic increase in participation in killing. More effective tactical and mechanical mechanisms were developped to enable or force combatants to overcome their resistance to killing.



The application and perfection of conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam, says Grossman.



The military’s marksmanship training program, with its pop-up targets, constitutes an highly effective operant conditioning.



Military behaviorists found out how to overcome our innate resistance to murder; they brought way up the percentage of killers among the platoons by incorporating reactive training with humanoid pop-up silhouettes.



Now the video industry has kids playing video games for hours at a time, blasting away at humanoid targets which explode in blood and gore when you shoot them.



In First-Person Shooter videogames, you pull the trigger and the human explodes in high-def blood and gore in front of you. And you do it again and again and again, while eating chips, drinking pop and smelling your girlfriend's perfume. This reconditions the kids to be ready to pull any actual trigger on any living human. Those videogames should be BANNED, restricted to military and law enforcement training.

[WOOO]

and where in that social contract does it say that the govt should protect you at every turn and individuals have no personal responsibility?

a social contract does not mean total subjugation to the govt...

Simplest definition: An implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits.

More: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+contract

By definition a social contract implies cooperation... ie a cooperative... ie a hegelian social construct... ie modern socialism...

[tonymctones]

Simplest definition: An implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits.

More: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+contract

By definition a social contract implies cooperation... ie a cooperative... ie a hegelian social construct... ie modern socialism...

you didnt answer the question, you simply redefined the term...

where in the definition does it say that the govt/group is to protect you at every turn?

where does it say that protection from the group replaces personal responsibility?

[WOOO]

you didnt answer the question, you simply redefined the term...

where in the definition does it say that the govt/group is to protect you at every turn?

where does it say that protection from the group replaces personal responsibility?

personal responsibility in a social contract is to contribute to group safety...

nothing 'replaces' anything

in hobbesian terms you can reserver the right to exit the contract if you feel threatened but you must accept that your life could be in jeopardy in doing so... of course i think hobbes was an idiot (all of his beliefs were founded on his religious upbringing which was seemingly unhealthy (potentially abusive)) but he did have some interesting thoughts...

and from a hobbesian perspective (in Leviathan) a social contract MUST be ruled by an absolute sovereign http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)

Hobbes, Locke & Thoreau were largely differentiated based on their thoughts around the level of control required by a government... again all 3 men were interesting idiots (Locke was a puritan, Thoreau was a liar and a wimp)...

Rousseau, Montesquieu & Voltaire took a different but also interesting approach when they evolved the social contract into a 2-way street where 'subjects' had defined liberties (contributing the the american and french revolutions among many other things)...


all of this is far more than i really want to debate on a saturday morning... but all of them considered libertarian ideas to be fancies of the rich


Kant, Hegel and Mark are more to my taste...

but again... this is heavy shit for a saturday morning