Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
invictius

Where's the doomworld editorial that defended our game post-Columbine?

Recommended Posts

Doomworld posted an editorial defending Doom and the staffers of the time participated in a variety of press interviews.

Share this post


Link to post

That doesn't defend Doom, though. It just says older people are always smarter than the young and that we need religion.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe I read that whole thing. It is not a defense of the freedom of speech in the form of electronic art or games, or even the presence of violence in either art or games.

The last part though, I couldn't stifle my laughter

I miss morality. I miss watching men open doors for women, something I find myself doing.

Holding doors open for women is not a moral action. It is a cultural norm. If you want to talk about holding the door open for an injured person, that is a moral action.

Share this post


Link to post
TheCupboard said:

I can't believe I read that whole thing. It is not a defense of the freedom of speech in the form of electronic art or games, or even the presence of violence in either art or games.

The last part though, I couldn't stifle my laughter
Holding doors open for women is not a moral action. It is a cultural norm. If you want to talk about holding the door open for an injured person, that is a moral action.



Agreed. To say that holding the door for a woman is a moral action would be to say that men are more capable of holding open a door than a woman is. However, it is still polite to do. I do it every time I can.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a better person than you because I keep open doors for everyone, even thiefs towards my home, and now they're taking my computer!

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

Not a great editorial TBH. Random ramblings about religion and Dennis Rodman.

Yeah, but I wouldn't be too harsh on it. Different era, different circumstances. How old was Dukrous at that point anyway? He'd probably cringe at it nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post

^ Well Linguica was AFAIK 18 years old in '99, so Dukrous couldn't have been much older. According to that logic, he's in his mid-30s now.

Share this post


Link to post
TheCupboard said:

I can't believe I read that whole thing. It is not a defense of the freedom of speech in the form of electronic art or games, or even the presence of violence in either art or games.

The last part though, I couldn't stifle my laughter
Holding doors open for women is not a moral action. It is a cultural norm. If you want to talk about holding the door open for an injured person, that is a moral action.


I still open doors for women unless they bluntly stop for me to open a door for them and they aren't carrying things. Heck I'll open doors for people in general unless its a herd of people.

One ex tell me opening building doors isn't enough I also need to open car doors. Then there was something about if you open a car door for a woman always open it from the outside but lock your own and if she doesn't have your door at least unlocked by the time you get to your side that should be the last date. Advice I didn't heed, but in the end its been correct. Then as I'm explaining that to a woman who doesn't at least have it unlocked they don't understand because I'm the man and they shouldn't have to open doors for me and its wrong of me to test them.

Share this post


Link to post
invictius said:

Doomworld posted an editorial defending Doom and the staffers of the time participated in a variety of press interviews.


Doesn't matter who defends Doom. The politicians and media will blame FPSes regardless because they need a scapegoat to drive their own selfish agendas.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone knows Columbine wasn't Doom's fault and I'm sure there's plenty of articles out there explaining why not. These kids didn't need some religious hogwash, they simply lacked confidence and needed direction and were living in a situation which provided them with neither. Their upbringing didn't properly equip them to deal with bullying and the general stress of adolescence. Doom was nothing more than a fun escape, if not for Doom it could have been any video game, or porn, or guns - Doom is not the only thing a person can use to escape reality. Their inability to responsibly play a violent game should never be grounds for more freedom-restricting legislation, by that logic most anything that's fun or features even remotely mature themes should be outlawed which is obviously absurd.

That's my understanding of it, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Master O said:

Doesn't matter who defends Doom. The politicians and media will blame FPSes regardless because they need a scapegoat to drive their own selfish agendas.


What time period are you posting from?

Share this post


Link to post

"Infinity plus 1 is greater that infinity, but it's not possible, by the definition of a supreme being, because supreme being plus 1 voids the definition of supreme being."

Not sure about the math here.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah , A lot of that went over my head.
Bottom line is, the people who do these crazy things are mad mad crazy to begin with.
The media likes to blame video games ,music and movies because its a tangible thing you can point a finger at.
mental health is not so easily understood therefor is easier to brush under the rug by the media. why?
Because mental heath doesn't make for an interesting news article.
" columbine massacre boys suffered with mental issues"
VS
"columbine massacre boys influenced by satanic mass murder simulator video game"
There is no contest as to which article will garner the most attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Aquanet said:

"Infinity plus 1 is greater that infinity, but it's not possible, by the definition of a supreme being, because supreme being plus 1 voids the definition of supreme being."

Not sure about the math here.

It seems to forget about the word "of." I'd definitely believe you could have a supremer being than a supreme being of, say, tropical fruit.

And that's ignoring the whole false equivalence thing. If you can't actually have a Supreme Being of Agility +1, then a supreme being clearly isn't infinity because you can actually have infinity +1. And infinity infinities. And infinity infinity infinities.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

Yeah, but I wouldn't be too harsh on it. Different era, different circumstances. How old was Dukrous at that point anyway? He'd probably cringe at it nowadays.

That's what I wondered too. It's the kind of stuff I might have written or considered profound back when I was like 17.

Share this post


Link to post
Arctangent said:

It seems to forget about the word "of." I'd definitely believe you could have a supremer being than a supreme being of, say, tropical fruit.

And that's ignoring the whole false equivalence thing. If you can't actually have a Supreme Being of Agility +1, then a supreme being clearly isn't infinity because you can actually have infinity +1. And infinity infinities. And infinity infinity infinities.

/me attempts to follow, eyes melt out of skull

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah religion had absolutely nothing to do with it and wouldn't of made a difference either way, it's been well known that Eric Harris had SEVERE mental problems and the medication he was taking was apparently making it even worse on top of all the bullying and bullshit.
As for Dylan Klebold, he was well liked from all reports but he also had his own mental problems and since he was Erics best friend he just did what he told him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Arctangent said:

It seems to forget about the word "of." I'd definitely believe you could have a supremer being than a supreme being of, say, tropical fruit.

And that's ignoring the whole false equivalence thing. If you can't actually have a Supreme Being of Agility +1, then a supreme being clearly isn't infinity because you can actually have infinity +1. And infinity infinities. And infinity infinity infinities.


Infinity + 1 is also kind of silly because there are infinities that are greater than other infinities. It gets weird.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

That doesn't defend Doom, though. It just says older people are always smarter than the young and that we need religion.

It's a good read, especially for a 17-year old, and it does bring up a few good points:

. We need morality. The article suggests that there are two types of morality: instinctual morality, and religious morality. I might argue that, although religions do explicitly state what one must/mustn't do, typically those rules are rather universally known instinctively, simply by being human (unless you're a psychopath), and by parental guidance and discipline. Religion adds some more rigid, specific interpretation, but basic knowledge (and application) of right and wrong would do everyone good.

. Parenting. The modren parent need to stop trying to be their children's "friend", stop using the TV and the video games as babysitters, and get off their ass and teach, guide, and discipline their children - This is the most important task of your life...it's the purpose of life. Breed 'em. Feed 'em. And teach 'em. Pretty obvious, basic stuff.

. The elders are wiser (my word) than the children. Duh. The human brain continues to develop into the mid 20's. Sorry, kids, yes, you don't know Jack. The elders have more worldly experience, more raw knowledge, and have dealt with more complex situations, and emotions, than you can imagine. They have the wisdom of age, and this is nothing new. (It's also something you cannot understand fully, until you reach said age. So develop some faith and trust in your elders. You'll get confirmation of the truths they teach you today, later in life.)

I must also state that I have noticed an alarming rate of atheist views from kids, and adults, on these and other forums. To claim that one particular religion is the correct one is questionable to the analytical mind, though there is at least some ancient evidence to back up many of them. But to claim to know, without a doubt, that there is no supreme being, without the ability to witness or present any credible proof, seems to me to be the most arrogant, misguided, illogical, idiotic possible conclusion. Yeah, I know it's "cool" to say. What's more cool is to develop your own beliefs and faiths, regardless of what your peers are doing. That is how you become your own person.

It's the latest trend: To proclaim to be your own god, and fully rule your own life, unhindered by responsibility to a Creator.

But if you're wrong...

Share this post


Link to post
40oz said:

What time period are you posting from?


The current one. Whenever someone mentally ill person goes on a shooting spree in a school, mall, or some other public place, the media and politicians look for a scapegoat to take advantage of it...

... yet the very same politicians have no problem sending thousands off to die in the Middle East and God Knows where, just as the media wants war for higher ratings.

Share this post


Link to post
kb1 said:

I must also state that I have noticed an alarming rate of atheist views from kids, and adults, on these and other forums.

Fuck off, preacher.

edit: To explain my little outburst, I find it incredibly arrogant and intolerant to imply that it is somehow "alarming" that many hold a different religious position than you. Should us atheists go away? Commit ourselves to some brainwashing instutition? Invite more God-fearing new members to sway the trend? The paragraph continues to paint atheism as some misguided latest fashion, which in itself is quite an insult. Atheism runs in my family for over 100 years.

Feel free to rant about the tenets of faith, the shortcomings of atheism, whatever. But do not say it's alarming that there are too many atheists around. Others might start counting you people and express worries too.

Share this post


Link to post

I must also state that I have noticed an alarming rate of atheist views from kids, and adults, on these and other forums. To claim that one particular religion is the correct one is questionable to the analytical mind, though there is at least some ancient evidence to back up many of them. But to claim to know, without a doubt, that there is no supreme being, without the ability to witness or present any credible proof, seems to me to be the most arrogant, misguided, illogical, idiotic possible conclusion.

I agreed with your entire post up to this point. The 'ancient evidence' for various religions rarely seems to be evidence at all - far more often it's a rather clear manifestation of a person's desire to romanticise history and indeed all of reality. I've yet to see anything that can objectively be called "evidence of a supreme being".

To claim to know, without a doubt, that there is a supreme being, without the ability to witness or present any credible proof, seems to me to be the most arrogant, misguided, illogical, idiotic possible conclusion. Especially when, depending on which fairy tale you choose to analyze, that supreme being seems like a huuuuge cunt.

You mentioned certain morals being instinctively known to (almost) all humans. This is a biological imperative that has been shaped over tens of thousands of years to ensure the survival and procreation of the species. A species who teaches it's young how to survive and cooperate with others is going to have great chances of survival. I agree that many parents are not doing a good job of teaching their kids right from wrong, but logically we can infer this as the result of no longer needing to be functional to survive more so than some 'wave of atheism' that's turning our kids away from God's morals or some such.

Religion is not the social adhesive that most religious people claim it is. Here's an interesting video that explores this idea further, released just today: https://youtu.be/CI9E3nEsvWo

In my opinion, one can find a far more stable moral ground than any religion can offer in 3 simple sayings:
"Treat others the way you want to be treated" - Empathy for your fellow man
"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words cannot hurt me" - Coping skills necessary for a society which encourages freedom of speech and thought
"Take only what you need lest others go hungry" - There is no happiness to be found in the isolation of greed. Benefitting oneself at the expense of others is an act deserving of exile, not adoration

If enough people followed these 3 simple rules, we could progress much faster as a species. If enough people ignore them, the very fabric of society will diminish and we will regress as a whole.

I didn't think this thread was going to become a religious debate but for some reason I just felt compelled to respond. (I hope you don't take any of this as a personal slight, kb1 - I don't intend it that way!)

Share this post


Link to post

Take it from me. I am a 16 year old, so I guess I'm one those kids with atheist views. The reason why I find the idea of "God"if you look back at my posts, you'll see I rarely use this word in my posts. Just saying to be impossible for me to believe in is because it's completely illogical. There is no evidence given.

If we learned anything about the universe, is that everything tends to have one main purpose. So what's the purpose of "God"? To watch over us, humans? What are we, some special snowflake? What about the other creatures on Earth? Prayers are also something I believe to be illogical. If there is a "God", why would "God" listen to our requests?... "Listen"..."Watch"... So "God" has the senses of a normal living being? Add the fact that "God" is referred to as a "He". So, "God" is also a guy? Where's the damn proof?

When was the idea of "God" introduced? During times when people believed in anything, right? Anything, because they didn't know how the world worked at the time: "the Earth is flat".

This whole description sounds like he is some comic book superhero. While it's worth mentioning that I believe there IS a greater power out there, I doubt it (not "he" or "she") is ANYTHING like "God". I doubt IT listens, watches, touches, or even directly interact with us, the special snowflakes of the universe.

The day I see what "God" really is, with logical facts, you can bet I'll believe in "God" then. Until then, nothing.

/rant
I avoid religious threads, so let this be an exception. And I may or may not have triggered some people here. It's my opinion.
/carry on

Share this post


Link to post
kb1 said:

But to claim to know, without a doubt, that there is no supreme being, without the ability to witness or present any credible proof, seems to me to be the most arrogant, misguided, illogical, idiotic possible conclusion.

That's not what atheist means.

But if you're wrong...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

Share this post


Link to post

Is it also not as equally as stupid to claim that there IS , without a doubt a supreme being and then to create an entire religious code of conduct based on this belief, with out a single shred of 100% full proof evidence?

I'm not knocking anyone's beliefs , people can believe whatever they like. But I disagree with what's wrong and what's right without any proof one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×