Posts by David Robinson26

Amanda Flores88 said:Where did you even come from today? You're acting wild. 😁

First, my buddy here claims these games are especially bad (for kids), then he goes on to say that's somehow the least philosophical way to put it—whatever that means. 😁

Everything carries some level of risk if you look closely enough, including medication—even when you follow the prescribed dosage to the letter. It is particularly dangerous when things like gaming or pharmaceutical drugs are misused or taken outside of their intended guidelines.

First, there is this immediate value judgment passed without any supporting argument, as if such a conclusion were somehow self-evident; and then, quite abruptly, comes the assertion that the matter doesn't even qualify as philosophy.
I find this approach to be a bit of an oversimplification, and I’m not just talking about video games. It seems like everything is being judged on a whim lately. For instance, Joe was recently under fire for his tastes, which I found quite interesting to observe. There simply aren't enough substantive arguments being presented here; instead, we see an overwhelming amount of reflexive likes and dislikes without any real depth behind them.

I wouldn't go so far as to say I am strictly a fan of video games; rather, I find myself drawn to almost any form of gaming. I will admit that my preferences fluctuate—some titles resonate more deeply than others—but the desire to play remains constant. When I approach a new experience, my methodology is quite deliberate: I first seek out what a game does exceptionally well before even considering its flaws. In my view, most critiques eventually boil down to the concept of "dosage." One should never overindulge; instead, one must discern the specific equilibrium that allows an individual game to shine. Ultimately, I don't believe there is such a thing as a fundamentally bad game. Rather, the deficiency usually lies with the players—those who either lack the maturity to appreciate a nuanced design or have simply outgrown the mechanics being presented to them.

Amanda Flores88 said:Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.

Glad you skipped over that part.
Honestly, one should just bypass you "old-timers" entirely when it comes to discussing gaming. 😒

It seems as though the sense of wonder associated with childhood died out in both of you a long time ago.

To begin with, what criteria are we even using to categorize games as either "normal" or "not normal"?

ruggedraven36 said:After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.

After all, video games are a form of media—specifically electronic media—which are fields that philosophy engages with quite deeply.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.
Talking about "pros and cons" is about as shallow as it gets. It isn't philosophy—any kid can list what's good and what's bad about something. That's just common sense, not deep thought.
Furthermore, one of the primary philosophical inquiries within this "world" of gaming involves your inherent bias. You seem to reject computer games a priori, favoring what you deem "real" games for children instead. I find myself wondering: why shouldn't digital experiences be considered just as "real"?
Secondly, why should this focus be restricted solely to children?
And thirdly, at what age does play cease to be desirable?

feralranger said:...yes... I feel many people in this thread tend to conflate cunning with wisdom... cunning is ethically (and empathetically) "neutral"; it can be wielded for both good and evil... whereas wisdom integrates exceptional intelligence, knowledge, intuition, and empathy (which, by logical extension, brings ethics into the fold). As I have maintained previously, unlike cunning, wisdom simply cannot function as an "instrument" for evil.

Furthermore, I would argue that for wisdom, that measurable kind of intelligence (Intel) isn't particularly vital. For instance, regarding my own capacity, I fall somewhere within the top 1%, which certainly aided me in mathematics and programming... which is precisely why I chose Microsoft and then MIT, as it felt like the "path of least resistance"—I wanted to avoid having to grind through studying at home (since they didn't exactly demand that level of rote memorization there), though truth be told, I don't actually enjoy those subjects in and of themselves. Consequently, I've spent my life drifting toward things that lean more toward the arts, specifically photography, design, and music...

I wouldn't go so far as to call myself "wise" (which follows from the fact that there isn't a strong correlation with Intel), but I would certainly say that about, say, my maternal aunt. In terms of Intel, I'd place her just slightly above average—nothing extraordinary... yet, it seems to be that specific blend of everything else...

...she was one of those rare individuals who knew how to do more than just listen to a person; she could provide advice that, as a rule, turned out to be sound... all without needing a "crystal ball." That is a virtue. Intel, in its own right, is nothing special... a former colleague of mine from Microsoft used to rank in the top 0.1% rather than the top 1%, sweeping up first-place trophies in national math competitions, yet he was—and remains—a completely "lost" soul in the grand scheme of life... I have never once viewed someone like him as a "wise" person. Even though he is vastly above average in intelligence, and a genuinely honest and decent human being... I would say he doesn't possess even a m of "wisdom."

For wisdom, it seems to me that intuition and empathy are far more significant, as is the ability to synthesize those various traits (eventually including Intel, though I maintain it isn't a dominant factor, provided it isn't significantly below average).

If we accept the premise that good and evil are human constructs—wherever morality depends entirely on one's perspective—then wisdom and cunning will inevitably be subject to later revaluation and shifting definitions.
We might initially perceive an action as wise simply because it appears virtuous, yet as time passes and its negative consequences unfold, we will retroactively label it as unwise.

William Palmer7 said:I don't think that's quite right. Intelligence doesn't have its own agenda; it's really just a tool used to reach a goal. And honestly, we can get to our destination through plenty of irrational turns too.

Hold on a moment—he is discussing reason, yet you are focusing on intellect. Are those terms not distinct? Or am I mistaken?

Sam Martinez9 said:But the reality is you're left with one criminal and ten (or even more) innocent people, rather than ten criminals and one innocent person.

If we followed your logic every single time, there would be more innocent people sitting behind bars than there are walking free. The ratio of criminals to innocents on the streets would tilt heavily toward the criminals; essentially, you'd end up with more crooks out in public than decent citizens.

I am intentionally exaggerating here. Where do we actually draw the line?
Is a 10:1 ratio somehow acceptable, while a 1:10 ratio is considered an outrage? At what point does the system simply fail us?

Look, if we look at the homicide statistics from last year in the US, the number of murderers is relatively small. Even if you were to multiply that figure by ten, it still wouldn't be a large enough number to justify mass arrests that would inevitably sweep up all the actual killers while leaving most of the population walking free.
The vast majority of people remain at liberty.

Why is a 10:1 ratio acceptable to you, yet a 1:10 ratio is fundamentally unacceptable?

bluemason3 said:I disagree.

This feels like empty, academic theorizing from people who don't actually hold any power or responsibility.

It's impossible to be 100% certain that every single conviction is wrong. If we followed that logic, the entire legal system would collapse, laws would become meaningless, and anyone could commit crimes without consequence.

Real decision-making isn't about picking a perfect option; it's about choosing the lesser of two evils when both have downsides.

While individuals will inevitably suffer mistakes within the system, society as a whole—and far more people—would suffer much worse without a judicial and law enforcement apparatus.

If we were talking about a purely theoretical 10:1 ratio rather than unpredictable, real-world errors, the answer would depend on the context. Specifically, what kind of killers are we talking about? Are they career criminals likely to strike again, or did they end up in this mess by pure accident?
In the first case, I'd be willing to send myself or someone else to prison alongside them.

Well, this is one of those rare instances where I find myself in complete disagreement with you.

Imagine a killer bursts into a building filled with transients and addicts, and the police surround the perimeter, certain the perpetrator is inside.
If everyone claims innocence, we might just throw the whole lot into jail because we’ll certainly catch the killer that way—who cares about a few vagrants or junkies?

But what if they slip into an upscale apartment complex, a quiet neighborhood, or a suburban community? 😉

I realize I am being hyperbolic here, but I believe the premise of your argument is flawed, leading to rather illogical conclusions.

The underlying assumption should be that "innocent people do not belong in prison," rather than suggesting we should deliberately subject them to it, as I have done in my exaggerated example. Mistakes can happen, certainly, but they shouldn't be intentional.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Sure, they are people. But they're people who made a conscious choice to break the law and screw over everyone else just to line their own pockets. I mean, there might be a few exceptions where people do it for some "greater good," but then we can argue about what those goals actually are.

Generally speaking, the person running a factory isn't the one writing the legislation—unless you're looking at a totalitarian regime, and even then, it's not a guarantee. You can wreck a business by breaking the law, or just by being an absolute disaster at management without breaking any rules at all.

At the end of the day, I'd rather see ten criminals and one innocent person behind bars than the other way around. It’s harsh, but that’s just how it works.

Better for whom, specifically, or for what purpose?