When will you learn that most people don't like Muslims...Originally Posted by wudang_clown
That is actually quite amazing!
Türküm. Doğruyum...
Moral choices and playing computer games
When will you learn that most people don't like Muslims...
That is actually quite amazing!
Fire Is Inspirational
Re: cinematic video
Oh, stupid me, thanks for the lesson!
Last edited by wudang_clown; January 13, 2011 at 07:43 AM.
Türküm. Doğruyum...
Re: cinematic video
You're not stupid. You're actually very intelligent, you just don't know it.
I was just pointing out to how Islamic sympathizers are in the minority, and the vast majority of people would rather command the ranks of the Kingdom of Jerusalem so that they can reclaim the holy lands from the 'infidel'. I suppose that in a way, I don't really blame them. I, personally, refuse to take charge of any faction which is not Turkish. Doing otherwise would increase my chances of killing my brothers and comrades. I dread to think of such thoughts. Thus, it feels morally wrong for myself to play any faction but that of my own kinsmen. Hence I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone for their refusal to play as an Islamic faction.
Fire Is Inspirational
Re: cinematic video
Oh, Gott im Himmel, vielen dank that you have send Atatürk here so he could enlighten me about my intelligence.
However, formally, a person which is allegedly very intelligent but doesn't know about it - such a person is not intelligent at all. Intelligent people are conscious of their intelligence; that conscience is an aspect of their intelligence.
As for your opinion about who is prevalent on this forum - I think that certainly there is no group of Muslims-haters or dislikers. Although I suspect people choose BC factions for political or historical reasons, it doesn't mean that when they like to play KoJ they automatically dislike Turks or Muslims in general.
Like Neige Noire said, this is a game, you don't kill here, you simply make choices while the application is running, you are not even close to think about killing a real person, only thing involved is an application code.
I can't even understand how could it be considered as symbolic gesture. If so, then what do you want to say - that by killing non-Turks, say Franks, you are manifesting your will to kill a Frenchmen? If you think so, then who is a disliker here? This is weird to think this way, one of the weirdest things on Earth, in my honest opinion.
Last edited by wudang_clown; January 13, 2011 at 09:04 AM.
Türküm. Doğruyum...
Re: cinematic video
For sure, there is no group of people present in this community who openly dislike Muslims. I think it's more a case of them using Broken Crescent to expand Christendom into realms which were never possible in other versions of the game. Certainly, one can go as far as India to convert their children into Christianity while bathing in the blood of their fathers. However, what prompted me to bring up the fact of some people's hidden dislike of Muslims was that few people would have Islamic domination of the world as their goal in Broken Crescent. It goes against their morals.
If I make these choices in a game, then what's to say I won't do the same were I to be in the parallel situation in real life? Sure, you might say that in the game no real people actually die, and you might have a point with that. However, you fail to take into account that when playing Broken Crescent, I have a choice. I could carry on scorching the earth and colouring the sands of Arabia in red. Or, I could bring peace and prosperity to my people and my neighbours. I could help the world develop, advance in technology which will bring in more wealth. Destroy poverty, cure diseases, disarmament, the possibilities are endless. It is the choices we make that determine whether we are moral men or not.
Sure, you might argue that were one to take the first option in real life, he'd be killing real people. And you'd also go onto say that in the game, no real people are harmed. However, what you fail to take into account is this: If someone is a warmonger in a game because no real people die, but not in real life because people do die, does that mean that we are only moral because of its consequences? And that if there were no consequences to raping, torturing, or killing you, it would be alright?
I would kill a Frenchman for the protection of the motherland, as I would in the game. I would kill a thousand Frenchman, or even a million for the safekeeping of the vatan. But I have no desire to kill one for no apparent reason. The same is true in-game.
Campidoctor
Re: cinematic video
Man... you're digging way to deep here.
I play both Christian and Muslim factions and I enjoy all of them. And that's all there is to it - enjoying the freakin game! So I suggest you take this prejudiced off-topic nonsense elsewhere.
Re: cinematic video
this is one of the strangest things I heard and believe me, I heard many.
I am a Christian and Broken Crescent gamer for a year, maybe something more, but I never played KoJ or Byzantines more than few turns and usually I am playing with Abbasids, Seljuks, Ghaznavids or Sindh. In fact, what attracts me to this game is the area of muslin various kingdoms wether are arab, turk or persian.
Anyway the weirdest thing in this topic is that you talk like you talk about a game and confuse it with real world situations which is not the case.
In fact, the moral act is the fact that certain decisions are made by taken into account the consequences they cause, good or bad.
What you do when you use Crescent Broken or generally any game is the gaming activity. Below is a scientific definition of the game:
French sociologist Roger Caillois, in his book Les jeux et les hommes (Games and Men),defined a game as an activity that must have the following characteristics:
- fun: the activity is chosen for its light-hearted character
- separate: it is circumscribed in time and place
- uncertain: the outcome of the activity is unforeseeable
- non-productive: participation does not accomplish anything useful
- governed by rules: the activity has rules that are different from everyday life
- fictitious: it is accompanied by the awareness of a different reality
As you can see, the game has nothing to do with reality; it could depicted, simulate it but never should be confused with.
here is more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game
To conclude, Ataturk you are very wrong.
It's a joke
Re: cinematic video
Socrates said that 'Wisest is he who does not know'. Therefore really stupid people are the most intelligent.
So don't worry you'll be fine.
Domesticus
Re: cinematic video
I love that quote.
Now if only I could convince my professor of this
Rome Total Realism Public Relations Representative
"We saved so much money on toilet paper" - Remlap, after giving advice on proper wiping technique.
Libertus
Re: cinematic video
Awwwwwwww...
Lol. FYI, not everyone hates Muslims. I know, shocking...
I have this Jewish friend who, for some reason, always loves to play the Germans in WWII games. Ironic?
Also, I prefer to play the Ayyubids.
Re: Moral choices and playing computer games
'infidels'? Both sides worship the same jew god... well christians have a thing for 'his sun'
And the jewish faith is a copy paste of egyptian pantheism, it's ironic how 50% of the worlds population is following a thinly veiled 'pagan' faith. I bet the pharoahs of old could not dream of having their religion worshipped by so many... if in an underhand fashion
Fire Is Inspirational
Re: Moral choices and playing computer games
I think that's about state of mind, not one's "data processing" and adaptation capabilities.
"Know-all" attitude (even if in a narrow matter) disallows one to progress, and if one doesn't progress, he regresses. It's like with that full cup of eastern sages - stupid (or rather the one who is wrong) man is the one who is like a full cup. Often, one can't adapt to changing situation or environment if he is unable to change his set of acting patterns accordingly. And one won't be able to change the set if he thinks that those patterns are enough or that they are the best thing he could achieve. If one thinks this way, he is like a cup full of tea, which is getting cold to a point when no one wants to drink it, and pouring hot water into it is not possible without overflowing.
A stupid man/woman is an intellectually inflexible man/woman. Stupid can never afford to be wise, and imo "One thing only I know, and that is I know nothing" was rather a coyness. In fact, Socrates knew very much, in terms of how to deal with knowledge. He was a sage full of doubt (and doubt for him meant activity rather than a deadlock, it inspired him to think) - unlike those who chose to gather a knowledge and passively stick to it.
Thus, I think that stupid can't be wise, unless in an oxymoron.
Judaism as pantheism? Now, that's something new.
Tiro
Re: Moral choices and playing computer games
'infidels'? Both sides worship the same jew god... well christians have a thing for 'his sun'
And the jewish faith is a copy paste of egyptian pantheism, it's ironic how 50% of the worlds population is following a thinly veiled 'pagan' faith. I bet the pharoahs of old could not dream of having their religion worshipped by so many... if in an underhand fashion
As an egyptology student, I can't help but point out how totally wrong this is. In fact it doesn't even make sense, there was no overarching egyptian religion but dozens of different interpretations, each no less accepted than the last, and the similarities between egyptian myth and judaism can be found in most any two middle eastern religions and in a whole heck of a lot of non-middle eastern ones as well.
403
Re: cinematic video
NevineZaki (photographer):A pic I took yesterday of Christians protecting Muslims during their prayers#jan25
wiki legend: By 30 January, imams from the Al-Azhar University joined the protests. Coptic priests and Muslim clerics were seen protesting together in unity. source: wikipedia
Campidoctor
Re: cinematic video
It's just a game. You are not actually killing anyone, so it's not worth thinking about moral dilemmas. Don't take colourful pixels so seriously.
Fire Is Inspirational
Re: cinematic video
First of all, Atatürk, you can't see a difference between reality and virtual reality.
Roughly speaking:
Moral choices concern relations between person and other person/persons. We may include animals in our moral thinking, and e.g. you can't kill a dog or a horse as easily as you kill a mosquito, there is a huge difference in assessment of their status; a dog or a horse are considered man's friends, while mosquito is a despicable creature. Killing a dog, at least in my country, for reason other that safety measures (because a dog is ill or dangerous) is considered immoral; the same about killing a horse. However, those will be always persons, people, who will be talking about morality of such a deed. Other dogs won't assess a killing of other dog as immoral, because they most likely don't operate with notion of morality, and they don't have any idea about notions of right, morality, law, etc.
So called Artificial Intelligence, which is not really intelligence, is neither a person, nor an animal considered man's friend. It is an object. As such, it can not be an equal side of relation with man - there is no law on Earth which gives such position in subject-object relation. In fact AI doesn't get with man into any kind of relation other than that between subject and an object.
As men, we don't have any moral obligations towards Artificial Intelligence or any other object. Therefore, it is wrong to transfer moral choices from reality to virtual reality of a game. In fact in single player campaign you are playing all alone. The rest is done by a code written by a programmer who in no way did cede his rights as a subject to his work - which is an object.
Given this, whatever you do in game, is in no way an object of moral assessment. Moral assessment concern only relation man-man.
The rest you are talking about is a nice usage of rhetorics; you are using hyperboles and metaphores, and that's it. You can't paint any sand with any blood or with any red in Broken Crescent, or in any other game, because there is no sand, blood or paint in any computer game.
As for you question about consequences of being a warmonger in game - well, that would be a point, because indeed there is a difference between consequentialism and deontology. Personally, I'd say I'm a consequentialist. Anyway, that doesn't matter, because what are consequences of massacring population of Baghdad in a campaign? This is a tricky question, until you remind yourself that you are playing a game.
That means that you have agreed to accept that in game notions of "massacring" and "population" and "Baghdad" are nothing more but metaphors - their meaning is completely changed: "massacring" does not mean killing of a mass of people, because there are no people in game, "population" does not mean a big group of people living in an area, because there are no people in game, and "Baghdad" does not denotes real city, because Baghdad would in no way fit into your computer. Those notions have nothing to do with real life. In game all is done by a calculator which is processing data, not blood or sand.
So, let's keep things straight, remember about meanings of words and not cause a confusion.
Türküm. Doğruyum...
Re: cinematic video
I'm afraid that's simply not true. Morality could also works on an equal level in a man-animal relationship. You should also remember that issues such as ethics can only be spoken about in a subjective manner. Ethics cannot be related to reason, as reason alone cannot be acted upon. Reason is a slave to the passions.
Once again I'm going to have to disagree with this. I'm going to use myself as an example to argue my point. When I was a child, I used to play out in the garden, toying with bugs and insects. I'd commit horrible acts, including times when I've forced a ladybird into an ant tunnel to watch it pulled into the feeding frenzy. However, now that I am older, such acts seem cruel and immoral to me. Perhaps this example links with the theory of moral development.
You'd probably argue that I wouldn't do the same to a dog or a horse, and you'd probably be right. But the reason for this is not what you think it is. Instead, it is because as a child I was never capable of committing similar atrocities against a dog or a horse. They're much larger animals than a ladybird or an ant, so an attempt of cruelty towards it would no doubt bear greater consequences than the bite of an insect. Hence, my earlier stated theory of consequences determining morals comes enters the frame once again.
In relation to your point about the mosquito, you've failed to mention that it's an aggressive flying insect which feeds on the blood of humans. Thus it is not at all surprising, or indeed immoral for a human to defend one's self it. Nor is it surprising that more often than not mosquitoes end up murdered in the process. They're minuscule insects which can be killed by single blow from the human hand. Humans also kill wolves, bears and other much larger animals than mosquitoes when defending themselves. It's not more immoral just because the animals are larger. Sure, a man may become upset because the wolf resembles his species more than a mosquito. The reason for that is that humans tend to be more emotionally moved by those who are closer and more similar to him or herself. For example, a fire which consumes a person in your village would no doubt cause greater disturbance than a flood in China which killed a hundred people.
What's to say that man isn't merely a sophisticated bio-mechanical machine, which is a thought not too dissimilar from that of Descartes? You've made the assumption that man has something, say a soul, which separates him from artificial intelligence. Man can form an emotional connection to objects, which is contrary to your claim. So there's nothing to stop man from connecting with so-called 'artificial intelligence'. It's not difficult to imagine a relationship being established after one has gone through the great deal of nurturing it. Thus, if we bring this into the concept of the Total War video game we can see that man controls artificial soldiers and guides them through victory and loss. Such events can no doubt form the two to bond. Thus, if a 'unit' is destroyed in battle, man may shed a tear after remembering the time they've spent together, how man raised it from its infancy and trained it until its death. You may find such an event as unlikely, but you cannot rule out the possibility of it happening among Total War players. Hence the man-object argument cannot refute the concept of morality in video games.
Sand, blood, paint all exist within Broken Crescent. Yes, they were artificially created, but they still exist, albeit in an artificial world. But what's to say that the world outside of Broken Crescent is any more 'real'? Kant wrote in his Critique of Pure Reason that 'Space is merely the form of outer tuition, but not a real object that can be externally intuited, and it is not correlate of appearances, but rather the form of appearances themselves.' He also said that 'Science, while useful as a means of ordering the data of the world of appearances, is limited to describing a surface world of man’s own creation and says nothing about things as they really are.' Thus, from this, it is possible to conclude that Kant thought that the world was made up of appearances. So the world we see is our own creation. Hence the 'real world' can be defined as artificially created. So the morality of the real world, in this regard, is no more different to that of Broken Crescent. Conversely, the morality in Broken Crescent is no different to that of real life.
Yes, but that's besides the point. Why would you be a warmonger in the game, when you have the option not to be? That is the question. You might answer back with 'It's just a game', but that doesn't refute the fact that you've taken the option to commit genocide and destroy civilizations in a military simulation when you had the option not to. What is it that drives you to commit such attrocities? If it's because you find it entertaining, then one must seriously have to question your sanity. I imagine it would be somewhat more entertaining in real life to gain cash through war and pillage as opposed to taxation as well. You might argue that people would lose their lives as a result of war in real life. But I'd argue back with the fact that new people are born every second to replace them. Which also draws a parallel with the game, as units, more often than not are replaced with new ones.
Last edited by Atatürk; January 13, 2011 at 07:37 PM.
Fire Is Inspirational
Re: cinematic video
Again, Atatürk, you are confusing notions.
Of course they can be related to reason. Ethic is a discourse, and as one of the fields of philosophy it is a field of reason. Morality is a way people act in society, it is a set of rules accordingly to which people act in society (in other words, you can't be immoral towards yourself).
Ethic's aim is to describe and analyze morality, thus ethic is mainly a matter of reason. While morality is derived from emotions, it is not a field of emotions. E.g. you can't kill a man because you are mad at him and you want him to disappear - it would be assessed as immoral and you would go to jail for such a crime. Killing a man who is enemy soldier is generally considered moral - however war is not a matter of emotions, but political choices, though they may be deep-rooted in resentments. So, we have two instances of killing, which essentially are the same - we are taking a life of a man because that or other reason. What differs is a principle of assessment, not natural but conventional, enacted by reasoning.
Yes, morality is linked with subjective emotions and feelings, but the very purpose of morality is to restrain those emotions and feelings to minimize potential negative impact of subjectivity on society. Morality is work of a reason, not emotions.
Also, if for you reason is a slave to passion why are you citing Kant, whose works are all about reason? You should be citing Freud instead.
And? As a child you are directed by your parents or guardians who teach what is moral and what is not, what is good and what is bad. Except for small differences, you learn that killing, stealing, unjustified violence etc. are bad and helping others in need (including animals), fairness, etc. are all good. It's not like you are all alone as a child and you are enacting new laws.
But we are not children here, so I fail to see your point.
And bears, wolves and, say, chimpanzees are all cute, sweet creatures which exist only so you could play nicely with them. You are thinking this way until a bear tears you apart with his claws, wolf bites off your leg and chimpanzee crushes your head with his fists and jaw.
These are all wild animals, ready to kill you because they are forever hungry or they just perceive you as a threat. Of course, people did ascribed some human features to animals, however that's just a relict of our totemic past. We do not need to rely on spiritual patronage of a strong bear anymore, whose spirit helps us on hunt and in war, because we don't need his strength and courage (btw, it is easy to be courageous when you are bigger that most of your opponents). We now have rifles, bombs and rockets.
And what we can see is that all those animals are not honourable and explicitly positive creatures - they are in fact opportunistic and deceitful and rely on brute force or sheer numbers when dealing with other creatures - and that's something some of us might consider immoral when applied by men in normal situations (in times of peace).
Again, you are using rhetorics. You are talking about an analogy, but analogy is based on similarity not on identity of compared objects.
A man is a sophisticated bio-mechanical machine only per analogiam. Machines are made for a specific purpose, they are mostly narrowly specialized and will never have to eat, sleep or make a poo - so things most of us probably would like to turn off it there had been such a possibility. Finally, machines do not need a period of 9 months to grow in mother's womb and then, say, 17 years to start to function "properly".
If you think that your computer's "intelligence" and your intelligence are the same thing, then you have really low self esteem. It is obvious that your intelligence allows you to take part in this discussion, while "intelligence" of your computer would never allow you to do so, because every computer is simply stupid.
No, this is not a soul, this is the very nature of intelligence. AI is not intelligence, and the term was formulated too hastily - a computer can make 10000000000 mathematical operations per 0.00001 second, sure, but it won't make him intelligent, because no computer can tell a joke, e.g. Computers are morons. If you don't believe me, try to talk with yours, good luck.
Yes, but it will never be a moral relation. Emotional connection itself has little to do with morality.
What are you talking about? The only thing I see is that you are so absorbed by the game, that you can't see anymore a difference between reality and fiction. What infancy are you talking about? There is no infancy in BC or M2TW. What time did you spend together with your "soldiers"? Have you suffered the same hardship - you sitting by the desk in your home, safe from any danger, and they dwelling in the hard drive of the computer?
No. What exists in game is not sand and blood artificially created, but representation of sand and blood.
It's as when you stand by a mirror. Who do you see? Yourself, you'd say. But that's not true. You see a reflection of yourself, a tricky effect of light and reflecting surface. When you look at a painting of a house, you don't see artificially made house, but representation of a house. Artificially made house would mean that there is a house made in an artificial way (I have no idea what way could it be, but whatever) in which you can live. You can't live in a painting of a house, obviously. The same with the mirror - you can't see yourself, because there is only one Atatürk who, just as any man, can't watch an other himself standing by, but he can watch his own reflection in the mirror.
The same concerns sand and blood in BC. This is not artificial sand and blood, these are textures (so, computer paintings) of sand and blood appearing in certain moments in game.
You can't confuse things like that.
I'm afraid Kant won't help you much here, because I'm afraid he had something completely different on mind. Anyway, if you think that reality is in fact an illusion, then I propose you to square off against a rushing car. What are you trying to say? That killing a soldier in BC is just the same as killing a soldier in real life? Well, then we should go to prison immediately and some of us would certainly get a death penalty. This is obvious rubbish, because no judge on earth would sentence you to any type of penalty for "massacring population of Baghdad" in BC, because fortunately, all judges are aware that what you do in computer games is not for real. Hence the saying - "playing computer games".
Last edited by wudang_clown; January 14, 2011 at 07:19 AM.
Domesticus
Re: Moral choices and playing computer games
its just a game
I am a Muslim and I enjoyed playing the Kingdom of Jerusalem !
I, personally, refuse to take charge of any faction which is not Turkish.TURANIAN ALERT - LOL - most of the factions in BC include Turkish units
dont forget the turcopoles !
Civis
Re: Moral choices and playing computer games
I'm a Christian and I love playing the Abbasid Califate, bringing Islam over the remains of Infidels, destroy the Mongol hordes, expand on Christian lands
And my favorite faction on Medieval 1 was the Turks. And there were only 3 muslim factions over 20+
Just a game
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
