|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 24 2006 00:54 baal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2006 00:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally. well all that sport didnt help much cuz ur actually fat, and could you care to ellaborate why you would have depeloped mentally less with electronics?
Your first comment is high class baal. You call me fat, great. You can call me fat, I dont see any point in verifying my weight status and muscle distribution to you anymore. If calling me fat on a forum makes you feel any less like the resident dumbass then by all means, please, continue to be the resident dumbass. Your second comment, do you really need an explanation? How much development do you think kids would do if they could use their imagination and create dioalogue, story, characters and theme with action figures versus a video game that does ALL that for them? Which do you think garners more potential brain power. Now is that to say every child benefits MORE from non electronic activities? Certainly not. But I would contend that when trends move heavily in favor (near the point of saturation) this is a detriment and surely open to discussion.
|
the problem inc, is that O reilly didn't say it at all like you just did;/
|
Someone should tell him that we dont give our vote to noobs.
|
On November 24 2006 01:45 OverTheUnder wrote:
the problem inc, is that O reilly didn't say it at all like you just did;/
If O Reily said it like Geoff said then people would not react to it like you guys have, and he probably wouldn't be so popular. The whole point of his radical offensive slander speaking is so you guys (Physician fell for this almost as much as the pathetic 'blogger') pay attention to his garbage and you react in such a way that actually makes him feel good about what he's saying, because deep down he's getting his point across to you guys. Regardless of how positive or negative you feel about it you have this vision of O Reilly but you don't actually know what he is (He's Conservative, clearly, you just need to note he's on FOX news).
Bloggers are the biggest problem because you give him this outlet for criticism and people have even higher levels of retardation than you do. O Reilly is a good politician, if he was to get involved in politics trust me he'd be good, however I don't think he is trying to do that. Being a pundit is easier for him so he's going to go ahead with that and bust balls. It's easier for people sitting in front of a camera to reflect their views and opinions to the public without having to sugar coat anything, and you guys miss the point sometimes. Would anybody vote for him now? Probably only Right Winged voters, but he's not going to run because he's already put his views flat out on the table. He's a political activist, like a liberal that goes around and protests, but instead he has a TV show. If you don't like him, don't watch him and definately don't blog about him.
|
On November 24 2006 01:13 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2006 00:54 baal wrote:On November 24 2006 00:10 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Although O'Reilly is generally a huge conservative and his style is very much so offensive, I agree to a certain extent. iPods, new gaming systems, and the general increase of audio/visual recreational technology means kids at younger and younger ages are spending more time glued to a machine than playing with action figures or doing a sport. I think it isn't nearly as bad as he would say it is now, but it could get as bad as he indicates and the only way to draw attention to such a situation is through talk shows or other media outlets. I spent my childhood playing in the forrest and staying active with sports or action figures. If I played video games or went everywhere with headphones on like I do now, as a child I would not be nearly as developed mentally. well all that sport didnt help much cuz ur actually fat, and could you care to ellaborate why you would have depeloped mentally less with electronics? Your first comment is high class baal. You call me fat, great. You can call me fat, I dont see any point in verifying my weight status and muscle distribution to you anymore. If calling me fat on a forum makes you feel any less like the resident dumbass then by all means, please, continue to be the resident dumbass. Your second comment, do you really need an explanation? How much development do you think kids would do if they could use their imagination and create dioalogue, story, characters and theme with action figures versus a video game that does ALL that for them? Which do you think garners more potential brain power. Now is that to say every child benefits MORE from non electronic activities? Certainly not. But I would contend that when trends move heavily in favor (near the point of saturation) this is a detriment and surely open to discussion.
ACTION FIGURES?! cmon dude, use your fantasy, use a piece of wood or something. we dont need those colourfully painted plastic brainkillers, who actually also spread the word of VIOLENCE.
all of this, in my humble opinion, is solely the parents responsibility anyway. turn off console, open door, kick kid out, tell him/her to be home before dark. problem solved.
oh and! welcome, welcome to the machine!
|
u know i think ive just about HAD it with adults who DONT KNOW SHIT about anything and try to run and govern the way young people live.
like "hm the only experience ive had with video games is that when i ask my kid to come down to dinner or do his homework, he hesitates a bit when playing the game and doenst obey my orders pronto, therefore, video games are fucking him up and all the other kids in this country, wow i own and im gona be the next president of the US"
WELL GUESS WHAT DIPSHIT, alcohol, hookers, porn and TV all have those effects ON YOU and well nooooo i dont see any young kids going around talking abt politics or how the country is run CUZ THEY DONT KNOW SHIT ABOUT IT and you would probably shun them away cuz they dont know what they are talking abt. guess what, thats how we all feel abt you too.
a fucking idiot adult comes waltzing in spewing out rubbish about video gaming as if its the meltdown of the next generation and the apocalypse of society, WELL GUESS WHAT DOUCHEBAG i bet 90% of the people below 18 play video games, and i dont see anything fucking wrong with the world.
jesus him and jack thompson just have to go do something else. seriously.
and the sad part is that parents who ALSO DONT KNOW SHIT look up to these idiots and take what they say for real.
|
United States44013 Posts
So he's bitching that he can't talk to young people because they're interested in computer games and he's interested in defending his nation from radical Islam? To communicate you need common interests. Thats pretty basic really. He's angry because no-one talks to him about how evil those Jihadists are these days and he has no friends and he's blaming video games.
|
Biill is funny. O'reilly for kids.... how does that go?
|
United States12248 Posts
You know, he's right. Video games are an escape from reality, a form of entertainment. The world is becoming more and more focused on entertainment, and there are more and more producers of entertainment in the world. There are more video game companies, more TV networks, more radio stations, more movies, etc. I listened to that particular Radio Factor on my drive home and at first I was thinking "what the hell is this man talking about", but his point isn't too far from the truth. Entertainment has become a massive industry, especially in America.
There really are people who spend so much time playing video games and not developing life skills that it becomes detrimental to their survival later in life. In that regard it's no different from heavy use of drugs or alcohol. BUT - what he's not discussing is the social aspect of gaming, just as there is social (or casual) alcohol and drug use. Games can also nurture a person's reaction time and puzzle-solving/critical-thinking ability. O'Reilly's final point about the Jihadists is also inaccurate because - while it's true people play games to escape reality as Jihadists are killing in the name of religion and furthering their cause in the real world - that does not mean that most gamers are oblivious to this fact, and in fact since many gamers also spend a lot of time on the Internet, they get this news faster than anyone else. I don't think gamers are the uninformed, clueless zombie slaves to machines that O'Reilly makes them out to be, although I'm sure there are at least a few who fall under that category.
|
Why does every old geezer assume that if kids aren't playing videogames they'd be out curing cancer or something instead? Newsflash: they wouldn't be. They'd find something else meaningless to do like light things on fire.
Everything is fine in moderation.
|
John Stweart has so much class...He is ten times the man Riley is. What Riley fails to recognize is that humour is the reality principal, allowing us to recognize and deal with, in a healthy way, the innanities, and insanities of the world out there. He is almost too involved in his own world, even to the extent that he can no longer laugh, because he is so intoxicated with the sound of his own voice, and pompous opinions. He clearly does not recognize that, like drinkers and pot smokers, only a fraction of users have an actual problem; for the majority of people, video games are a past time. And I think many of us could make the case that they actually have, again like pot and booze, some beneficial effects.
Edit: Wow...who would have figured that the O'Riley Thread would spawn almost nothing but one-sided rants.
|
Played video games all my life
Still play video games
Gonna get a Ph.D. in chemical engineering
Guess i'm a waste of life eh?
|
On November 24 2006 07:19 Flaccid wrote:
Why does every old geezer assume that if kids aren't playing videogames they'd be out curing cancer or something instead? Newsflash: they wouldn't be. They'd find something else meaningless to do like light things on fire.
Everything is fine in moderation.
You are correct. However, it is keeping the video gaming in moderation that should be the point of focus.
|
|
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 24 2006 07:25 KOFgokuon wrote:
Played video games all my life
Still play video games
Gonna get a Ph.D. in chemical engineering
Guess i'm a waste of life eh?
Sad to think you are going to get a Ph.D in a scientific field and still don't understand the concept of probability. Sure you were able to rise above the inherent negative side effects of sacrificing people time for zone-out time your entire life, but do you think that will work for the majority of the children? Or do you think they could probably use some encouragement to enjoy the activities in moderation?
|
video games drastically increased the rate at which i learned to read. if i had never played final fantasy 4 or 6, my knowledge of the english language would be middle school at best. street fighter taught me where brazil and USSR are on a map. zelda and metroid taught me how to think critically and solve problems. video games also teach pattern recognition and motor skills.
im not sure how video games and technology can be classified as anti-social. when i was little my friends would always come over to play battletoads and mario kart. telephone and instant messenger allow me to keep in touch with my childhood friends even though some of them live 3000 miles away.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
Some of you are forgetting that the only victim in the advent of new technology has been old format television and book reading, and yes old format advertising along with it. I can do both with the "machines" that he is whining, even chose to use old formats within the new technology. I play the same amount of hours today as I did 20 years ago before fiddling about with PC's. I am also far more free now when it comes to content choice and content availability, both in knowledge and entertainment - and what is more it can be instant by choice. I also have more control on how much advertising I can avoid.
O'Reilly's argument is not only hypocritical, since he benefits from the "machines" but it is an age old long, tireless lament, the young have always been hearing from the old: "before it was better." He would be much more congruent and smarter had he started the argument with board games, television and radio, before he engaged consoles, the internet and ipods.
As for the argument for moderation, and it being safer and healthier, mentioned by iNcontrol and others, I agree. Nevertheless in our youth moderation was not always the answer nor what we wanted - this is part of being young and learning; and yes parenting is there to help! We all know such advice applies now as it much as it did in the past and not only to new technology.
O'Reilly did not make that argument though, he preferred to claim he was never going to use an ipod, he implied that jihadists are getting things achieved because they are not wasting time playing computers and he made the forecast that machines will be the downfall of the US younger generations because they will never acquire any skills to survive, because they are gaming all the time.. then how come life goes on as usual? Why is KOFgokuon going to get his Ph.D? Why did I make it? Why do kids still go to school and colleges and universities are still filled?
I tell you what has changed - we watch less advertising, and the poor phuker that works day in, and day out in job that he does do not like to make ends meet, whether it be nuking the burgers at a fast food or sucking the gizzards out of chicken in a food processing line has SOMETHING different to look forward than TV & beer. He can be a warrior on the hills of Ragnarok or he can own the living shit out of his doctor on battle.net. But let us just assume, that he is of similar minds with O'Relly, well hell, he can still sit, watch TV, drink his beer and watch the O'Relly factor & and mute the ads.
|
On November 24 2006 08:46 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2006 07:25 KOFgokuon wrote:
Played video games all my life
Still play video games
Gonna get a Ph.D. in chemical engineering
Guess i'm a waste of life eh? Sad to think you are going to get a Ph.D in a scientific field and still don't understand the concept of probability. Sure you were able to rise above the inherent negative side effects of sacrificing people time for zone-out time your entire life, but do you think that will work for the majority of the children? Or do you think they could probably use some encouragement to enjoy the activities in moderation?
Um, wtf does this have to do with probability? If you want to take issue with the idea that his argument is anecdotal, go ahead. But don't be a dumbass and jump to a conclusion that somehow he's innumerate. This is just poor argumentation.
By the way, his anecdotal argument applies to me as well, and to 15-20 other Ph.D. friends of mine. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the percentage of people age 30-40 who still game features a much higher percentage of advanced degrees than the general population 30-40.
And I hope you aren't relying on Bill O'Reilly to provide encouragement to our kids so that they live healthy lifestyles. This is where parents come in handy. And if a kid's parents can't handle the job, there's no way that these fat-ass Republicans (and yes some Dems, including @&*$^* Hillary too) are going to solve anything by moralizing. Goddamn Luddites.
From the point of view of O'Reilly's argument, video games really are objectively better in all senses than, say, cable television. Both of them are capable of forming addiction and of siphoning off large amounts of time which could otherwise be used on other things. But video games are inherently more interactive than watching the tube, and video games are definitely better in terms of problem solving and in the chance that the user is learning something valuable (this all depends on what channel we're talking about and what type of game...but in general a video game's more likely to teach you something useful than some random show on cable).
And I don't know why you assume that playing video games qualifies as "zone-out time". During the day I work as a research scientist and often in the evenings I game (and have been for ~20 years), and there's been plenty of times where the gaming part of my day was more mentally challenging and rewarding than my day job. There's also plenty of times when gaming is more "people-oriented" than my day job. And if you are posting on TeamLiquid, I don't need to tell you that gaming can also create positive social interaction.
|
There are research scientists and Physicians that can play casually at night. But there are also people that don't have jobs that play video games all afternoon. I see them all the time on Judge Judy and the People's Court. Women complain about their ex-boyfriends playing their playstation all day instead of supporting their children. Then Judge Judy rips into them about growing up and getting a job. Good times
|
“The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” -Adolf Hitler
The problem with O'Reilly is not that he picks horrible things to express concern. Its his absolutly disgusting use of rhetoric. He chooses something then influences people by being as outraged as possible. The opposite of this would be making a well structured argument with support, facts and examples.
Unfortunatly, mr.hitler is correct. Moderation and reason almost never win against rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
