• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

should games like this be banned?

should games like this be banned?

  • Total voters
    40
-_- <----my reaction to this topic.

I am sorry, but the answer to this poll is such an obvious no. Nobody is forcing any of these people to play these games. They just like it. Hell, you could make the argument that this political forum is addictive as well and should be banned. How many times have you spent hours just commenting here? Hell reading is addictive. I got dopamine rushes flipping through each chapter of Harry Potter. I couldn't stop! Guess we should ban reading too. Unless the book is boring. Actually, let's just ban everything people enjoy and like to spend lots of time doing because addiction.

Stop trying to kill what other people define as fun. Fun sucker.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
Responsibility is there of course, we need societal accountability to achieve ever higher levels of society and technology and choice has to as part of that societal need.

However, its not 100% responsibility or 100% animal instinct but a mix if the two
Click to expand...

lol that is the point I have been trying to make all along. It appears as if we are in agreement. :)
 
Rhiannon said:
lol that is the point I have been trying to make all along. It appears as if we are in agreement. :)
Click to expand...

Our difference is likely in emphasis.
 
tacomancer said:
Our difference is likely in emphasis.
Click to expand...

I do tend to emphasize personal responsibility, yes. But I also acknowledge instinct as apart of the equation. However, I put faith in human potential, and I believe that people can and most often will overcome their brain stem reactions if they try.
 
Rhiannon said:
I do tend to emphasize personal responsibility, yes. But I also acknowledge instinct as apart of the equation. However, I put faith in human potential, and I believe that people can and most often will overcome their brain stem reactions if they try.
Click to expand...

I seek to see the world as it is and not as I prefer it, even when that means accepting things I dislike (which there are many). People here mistake my description of reality as me advocating for what i am describing, but thats the culture of the forum, so i don't blame them.

In terms of what I put faith in, I will say that the world has proven to me to be a pretty dark place at times, and while humanity generally moves forward, individuals may not, despite their best efforts. Because of that, I tend to put the most emphasis in what can be done today and practically instead of speculating on ideals that likely will never be achieved. This is evident in my philosophy as I focus on results and what is in my scope of control to give myself the best life possible given my cards at any given moment. Its all anyone can really do.

Humanity encompasses both the best and worst of potential. There are children born with good and bad brains. Some can do great things and be born with a talent for using will power to overcome impulses and some will never be able to. Humanity as a whole tends to do so so, not good enough to achieve any sorts of long term project successes (societies tend to regress towards the mean over time in terms of culture) but well enough to push technology and other types of sophistication forward in order to achieve positive growth in things like health, well being, intelligence, happiness, etc. But a common factor in the things being pushed forward is that they can be externalized from the mind. Social organizational plans, science, technology, spirituality (to some extend), and other things can be documented. If it were just up to humans (if we never developed writing for example), I very much doubt we would have gotten past villages and constant tribal warfare. This is precisely, I think, because people will always be more responsive to their needs and constraints then their will (because this is what passes on the genes and those needs and constraints are just natural adaptions to our niche in nature), except for brief and inspiring moments in history (during periods of transition where pent up frustrations give birth to new ideas and philosophies)
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
This is what Candy Crush Saga does to your brain | Dana Smith | Science | theguardian.com

Candy Crush is basically designed to exploit human neurochemical weaknesses.



This is the sort of mechanism which fuels gambling addiction. As science and psychology becomes more sophisticated, more problems with how the human brain processes information will be revealed, opening the door for more ways to exploit that weakness.

I personally view this as extremely unethical at best as it purposefully undermines free will. What is your take?
Click to expand...
Banning any form of game (apart from one that involves actual harming/killing of people) is unacceptable.

In this specific case, your point about it undermining free will is basically the same argument used to make addictive drugs illegal - but not cigarettes, or alcohol, or any number of other things which are somewhat addictive (for the same reasons, in some cases).

The key here is to educate people as to the negatives, rather than simply banning the thing so you can't see it (but someone will continue to play it, for damn sure).

That you would seriously consider banning a game because of the given reasons is hilariously saddening. What? I like contradictory statements.
 
The Mark said:
Banning any form of game (apart from one that involves actual harming/killing of people) is unacceptable.

In this specific case, your point about it undermining free will is basically the same argument used to make addictive drugs illegal - but not cigarettes, or alcohol, or any number of other things which are somewhat addictive (for the same reasons, in some cases).

The key here is to educate people as to the negatives, rather than simply banning the thing so you can't see it (but someone will continue to play it, for damn sure).

That you would seriously consider banning a game because of the given reasons is hilariously saddening. What? I like contradictory statements.
Click to expand...

My view is that the addictive drugs should have heavier regulations while the nonaddictive ones should not, except to minors.
 
tacomancer said:
My view is that the addictive drugs should have heavier regulations while the nonaddictive ones should not, except to minors.
Click to expand...
Personally I think banning things is not as effective as the word implies, and that educating people about the negative effects of things is more effective.

For example, the campaign of information about the negative effects of cigarettes appears to have reduced the number of smokers. And opened up the new "vaping" market/thing, which may or may not have it's own side-effects.

I'm not entirely opposed to serious restrictions and limits on some "hard" drugs, those known to damage and kill people. But if someone wants something bad enough they WILL find a way to access it....outright bans appear to be ineffective.
 
The Mark said:
Personally I think banning things is not as effective as the word implies, and that educating people about the negative effects of things is more effective.

For example, the campaign of information about the negative effects of cigarettes appears to have reduced the number of smokers. And opened up the new "vaping" market/thing, which may or may not have it's own side-effects.

I'm not entirely opposed to serious restrictions and limits on some "hard" drugs, those known to damage and kill people. But if someone wants something bad enough they WILL find a way to access it....outright bans appear to be ineffective.
Click to expand...

A ban doesn't have to result in a total lack of use to be considered effective. Nothing is ever 100% effective. the question is whether the reduction in use was the goal when the task was sanctioned was achieved.
 
tacomancer said:
A ban doesn't have to result in a total lack of use to be considered effective. Nothing is ever 100% effective. the question is whether the reduction in use was the goal when the task was sanctioned was achieved.
Click to expand...
Has there been any reduction in use with banned items?
 
tacomancer said:
It does as pressures mean you are not in complete conscious control of that choice.
Click to expand...

Yes you are. A misunderstanding of addiction and what it means for a person to choose freely. Libertarian free will is a myth, we don't have it (and we wouldn't want it even if we did - Dennet has a great book on the topic if you're curious). We have a form of compatabilist free will. Choosing freely isn't about somehow being outside the causal chain when making a decision. We are embedded in the causal chain, a part of it. Being somehow outside of it doesn't even make sense - your thoughts, beliefs, desires should cause you to choose certain things. It wouldn't be freedom at all if that weren't the case. Imagine if decision-making were causally-independent of your beliefs and desires. That you believe you heard your baby crying upstairs, that you care about your baby, that you want to to go check on your baby, but instead of those thoughts and desires causing you to decide to go check on your baby, you instead decide to run out into the street and do cartwheels. That's not freedom. We need to be embedded in the causal chain to have freedom, to have control over our decisions and behavior.

The world around us influences us (by influencing our beliefs, desires), and we in turn influence the world (by deciding to do action X). Acting freely is about acting in accordance with your thoughts, intentions, and desires. When someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do X, we say you are not doing X freely because you are not doing X in accordance with your thoughts, intentions, desires. You are doing it against your will.

In the case of addiction, a person may develop competing desires - a desire to quit in addition to a desire to, let's say, smoke. The person will only successfully quit smoking indefinitely when the desire to quit (the desire to avoid the health problems, the bad teeth, the smelly clothes and house, the cost) outweighs the desire to smoke (the desire to experience the pleasurable feeling, the relaxation, etc that comes with smoking) indefinitely.

The reason addicts relapse is because our desires and beliefs change over time, they ebb and flow. When an addict relapses, it's not because some subconscious, reptilian part of his brain has taken over control of his hand and is forcing him against his will to drive to the gas station and buy a pack of cigarettes and light up. It's because his desire to smoke has temporarily surged and exceeded his desire to quit, probably due to some external factor like stress. In that moment, he wants to smoke more than he wants to quit. He's still acting freely. No one has a gun to his head. His reptile brain hasn't taken control of his movements. Afterwards, his desires may ebb back they way they came, he may regret the relapse and want to quit again.
 
tacomancer said:
I seek to see the world as it is and not as I prefer it, even when that means accepting things I dislike (which there are many). People here mistake my description of reality as me advocating for what i am describing, but thats the culture of the forum, so i don't blame them.

In terms of what I put faith in, I will say that the world has proven to me to be a pretty dark place at times, and while humanity generally moves forward, individuals may not, despite their best efforts. Because of that, I tend to put the most emphasis in what can be done today and practically instead of speculating on ideals that likely will never be achieved. This is evident in my philosophy as I focus on results and what is in my scope of control to give myself the best life possible given my cards at any given moment. Its all anyone can really do.

Humanity encompasses both the best and worst of potential. There are children born with good and bad brains. Some can do great things and be born with a talent for using will power to overcome impulses and some will never be able to. Humanity as a whole tends to do so so, not good enough to achieve any sorts of long term project successes (societies tend to regress towards the mean over time in terms of culture) but well enough to push technology and other types of sophistication forward in order to achieve positive growth in things like health, well being, intelligence, happiness, etc. But a common factor in the things being pushed forward is that they can be externalized from the mind. Social organizational plans, science, technology, spirituality (to some extend), and other things can be documented. If it were just up to humans (if we never developed writing for example), I very much doubt we would have gotten past villages and constant tribal warfare. This is precisely, I think, because people will always be more responsive to their needs and constraints then their will (because this is what passes on the genes and those needs and constraints are just natural adaptions to our niche in nature), except for brief and inspiring moments in history (during periods of transition where pent up frustrations give birth to new ideas and philosophies)
Click to expand...

You address many good points, but what I see as a fallacy is when people take their own limitations and chain themselves to those limitations without thought for what they could be. Some people suffer horrific abuse or trauma, and stay forever chained those those affects while others can move forward. It could be genetics, and to a certain extent it probably is. However, I also see one's attitude as a central player in this game (of life). Someone could be born with a lower IQ but with practice can learn to adapt by using emotional intelligence. Also, someone might have a higher IQ but have blunted emotions and must learn to adapt living in a world where emotions tend to be a deciding factor. Adaption is the key, and this is humanity's greatest strength.

I do agree with your assessment on people having tribal mentalities. Imo, as a species, our next greatest leap in evolution will be the overall ability to think on a universal level instead of being stuck with a tribal mentality. This is perhaps the most limiting factor of the human mind. Also, the human ego needs to shrink a lot as well, lol.



the_recruit said:
Yes you are. A misunderstanding of addiction and what it means for a person to choose freely. Libertarian free will is a myth, we don't have it (and we wouldn't want it even if we did - Dennet has a great book on the topic if you're curious). We have a form of compatabilist free will. Choosing freely isn't about somehow being outside the causal chain when making a decision. We are embedded in the causal chain, a part of it. Being somehow outside of it doesn't even make sense - your thoughts, beliefs, desires should cause you to choose certain things. It wouldn't be freedom at all if that weren't the case. Imagine if decision-making were causally-independent of your beliefs and desires. That you believe you heard your baby crying upstairs, that you care about your baby, that you want to to go check on your baby, but instead of those thoughts and desires causing you to decide to go check on your baby, you instead decide to run out into the street and do cartwheels. That's not freedom. We need to be embedded in the causal chain to have freedom, to have control over our decisions and behavior.

The world around us influences us (by influencing our beliefs, desires), and we in turn influence the world (by deciding to do action X). Acting freely is about acting in accordance with your thoughts, intentions, and desires. When someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do X, we say you are not doing X freely because you are not doing X in accordance with your thoughts, intentions, desires. You are doing it against your will.

In the case of addiction, a person may develop competing desires - a desire to quit in addition to a desire to, let's say, smoke. The person will only successfully quit smoking indefinitely when the desire to quit (the desire to avoid the health problems, the bad teeth, the smelly clothes and house, the cost) outweighs the desire to smoke (the desire to experience the pleasurable feeling, the relaxation, etc that comes with smoking) indefinitely.

The reason addicts relapse is because our desires and beliefs change over time, they ebb and flow. When an addict relapses, it's not because some subconscious, reptilian part of his brain has taken over control of his hand and is forcing him against his will to drive to the gas station and buy a pack of cigarettes and light up. It's because his desire to smoke has temporarily surged and exceeded his desire to quit, probably due to some external factor like stress. In that moment, he wants to smoke more than he wants to quit. He's still acting freely. No one has a gun to his head. His reptile brain hasn't taken control of his movements. Afterwards, his desires may ebb back they way they came, he may regret the relapse and want to quit again.
Click to expand...

Addiction is mostly physiological. It takes the conscious mind a great deal of strength to overcome it.
 
Rhiannon said:
Addiction is mostly physiological.
Click to expand...

As is the mind. Addictions, desires, will to quit - are matters of the mind. Which, then, are caused by goings-on in the brain. So it's no surprise that science has discovered relationships between physiological processes in the brain and addiction (just like numerous other matters of the mind). But that doesn't mean matters of addiction are beyond a person's control, beyond control of a person's mind. That only follows if you believe that a person's mind is somehow distinct from all that.

There's a current trend to excuse addicts of their behavior because we've found a physiological basis. That they can't control it because it's physiological. But that's simply a mistake. Their ability to control it, their "will" is just as physiological. So that's no barrier at all. They CAN control it. Understanding that you're not powerless to your addiction is key to overcoming it. And everyone that has overcome an addiction without needing brain surgery to repair some faulty physiological wiring is proof of that.

Unfortunately, there are those that run with this idea in the wrong direction. Telling an addict he is weak because he has not yet overcome his addiction isn't productive because it tends to make the addict believe he is weak and feel worthless, undeserving of redemption. No one that feels that way about his or her self is going to overcome much of anything.

Rhiannon said:
It takes the conscious mind a great deal of strength to overcome it.
Click to expand...

It can, sure.
 
tacomancer said:
This is what Candy Crush Saga does to your brain | Dana Smith | Science | theguardian.com

Candy Crush is basically designed to exploit human neurochemical weaknesses.



This is the sort of mechanism which fuels gambling addiction. As science and psychology becomes more sophisticated, more problems with how the human brain processes information will be revealed, opening the door for more ways to exploit that weakness.

I personally view this as extremely unethical at best as it purposefully undermines free will. What is your take?
Click to expand...

images (21).jpg download (8).jpg
Activity of the normal human brain. The human brain while playing Candy Crush
 
shrubnose said:
I'm not into gaming, I have better things to do with my time.

In general, I'm opposed to censorship, if you don't like something, nothing requires you to participate in it.




" The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers
Click to expand...

I agree with your opposition to censorship. Someone doesn't like the game...don't play it. But don't force your likes or dislikes on others. I'm for free choice.

Now...I've never played that game, though I'm aware it's pretty popular on Facebook. But that's only because I'm more the kind of person who likes MMORPG's. I get more enjoyment out of killing some other human's in-game character in a brutal, devastating manner...while doing my very best to avoiding the same happening to me. I'm afraid Candy Crush would seem rather tame to me.
 
tacomancer said:
This is what Candy Crush Saga does to your brain | Dana Smith | Science | theguardian.com

Candy Crush is basically designed to exploit human neurochemical weaknesses.



This is the sort of mechanism which fuels gambling addiction. As science and psychology becomes more sophisticated, more problems with how the human brain processes information will be revealed, opening the door for more ways to exploit that weakness.

I personally view this as extremely unethical at best as it purposefully undermines free will. What is your take?
Click to expand...

I say yes, this should not be allowed. If not for anything, just for the time it takes away while trying to make sense of what really may matter around you.
 
Hard Truth said:
The usual argument for censorship is that people with weaker brains will be excessively influenced by certain types of media technology and content. The people with the "weaker brains" are never the people who advocate for censorship, it has usually been the young, women and the poor. Apparently the people who do the censoring have a superior ability to withstand exposure to the toxic media or content since they get the most exposure to it, but still have the will power to ban it.

Look at the history of censorship and the banning of new media technology and provocative content and you see a history of excessive fear, panic and arrogance. We no longer fear playing pool, player pianos, pinball machines, arcade games etc, yet all have been banned. The books, movies, songs and artists that have been banned in the past are now considered harmless, and some of their works are now considered classics.

Banning a computer game is just as stupid as banning Lady Chatterly's lover, Lenny Bruce's comedy shows, Allen Ginsburg's Howl, the Kingmen's Louie Louie or the film I am Curious (Blue).
Click to expand...

There's a difference between what you describe and designing a game using known "exploits" in human cognition.

An example I use is the kind of market research they do at malls where they buy you lunch for watching a commercial and getting your feedback/response. Lets say its a commercial for minivans aimed at soccer moms. But when tested it not only doesn't make those soccer moms want that minivan it makes them actually hostile to not only minivans but the company that made them.

One would think that would be a bad thing, and it is for that particular commercial. But that commercial will be dissected to discover what pissed those soccer moms off.

For the next time a client wants to piss off soccer moms. When someone wants soccer moms pissed at a political candidate.

Using algorithms to determine the rate of rewards in a game to maximize addiction isn't the same thing as making an enjoyable game.

It crosses a line.
 
Hard Truth said:
That same argument has also been used for film and television because of their pervasiveness and alledgedly unique power to influence. Its still a bad argument. The rest of us shouldn't be prevented from enjoying something because some people can't enjoy it moderately and responsibility. The argument that we should ban pleasurable activities to protect the weak from addiction could also be applied to food since so many people eat excessively.

If you think a video game is dangerous, get ready for technology that can directly tap into parts of people's brains, which is not far off. Few people know that marketers, PR people and advertisers are already using functional MRIs to test the effectiveness of their messges.
Click to expand...

They've already been using solid science for years. MRIs are just refining techniques.

And a good number of them work whether one is aware of them or not.

A hundred years of market research, which is simply human stimulous/response patterns, databased and cross referenced with the advent of the computer provided predictable, repeatable methods. The field of cognitive linguistics as well. Now watching your brain work in real-time.

Would you feel differently if they were secretly adding just enough heroine to your breakfast cereal that you could never get enough? Because that is the cognitive equivalent of a lot of techniques in play. They slide right by our "filters".

I don't advocate censorship, but education would go a long way towards providing defenses against these techniques and would allow our society to decide what level of subconscious manipulation is acceptable.
 
Goshin said:
I disagree. The presence of influences and manipulation does not negate that you CHOOSE whether to buy that Three Musketeers bar or not. :D
Click to expand...

What if that three musketeers contains a chemical not on the ingredients list that causes physical addiction similar to heroine?

The potency of some of the techniques in play is MUCH higher than most people think. Several will.work on people who work in the field.

It isn't mind control, but they can cause a predictable, repeatable change in feelings towards a product or subject in a predictable percentage of a target demographic.

From my research on the subject it appears that about 25% of people are completely defenseless to common techniques. Watch for yourself the next time you see a piece about people who believe nonsensical things promulgated by PR and marketing. The numbers are always around 25%, across ideologies.

And they have done studies that establish that even people who should know better believe they are immune to techniques they patently are not.

The PR trade even has a name for some techniques: "black PR". Methods considered unethical to use. It is even illegal to use them in some countries, and practitioners are licensed.
 
Rhiannon said:
While it's true that there isn't 100% free will (or 100% anything for that matter) as individuals, it is up to each of us to be responsible for what actions we can control. Unless someone has a gun to your head, you are not being Forced to do anything. People get a rush from doing drugs, for example, but are they not responsible for making the decision to do those drugs? I have read studies which compare video game addiction to drug use due to the neurotransmitters involved. However, as human beings, we have a conscious mind and can control (although it is difficult) our lower brain functions. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to protect you from your own baser instincts. This is what separates Us from the rest of the animal kingdom, imo.
Click to expand...

Yet there are cognitive "exploits" available based on quirks in how our brains process information.

The written word, for example, bypasses certain filters we have evolved for spoken language. Written words enter the brain through different channels than spoken ones. The result is that what one reads is assumed "true" and must be "corrected" after the fact where what one hears is filtered BEFORE it gets into your brain. A technique used around this "glitch" is to distract a reader right after reading the piece the client wants believed. This allows the concept to make the transition from short term to long term memory without being "edited". Then the human reluctance to admit they have been tricked, that they were wrong about something kicks in and cements the false belief.
 
What if...? said:
Disclosure maybe? An "ingredients list" of techniques in play to allow an informed decision?
Click to expand...

That would be a good idea too. A list of requirements on disclosure might pass the needs of the free market crowd.
 
tacomancer said:
This is what Candy Crush Saga does to your brain | Dana Smith | Science | theguardian.com

Candy Crush is basically designed to exploit human neurochemical weaknesses.



This is the sort of mechanism which fuels gambling addiction. As science and psychology becomes more sophisticated, more problems with how the human brain processes information will be revealed, opening the door for more ways to exploit that weakness.

I personally view this as extremely unethical at best as it purposefully undermines free will. What is your take?
Click to expand...

It is not designed to exploit that... it is just a stupid game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom