The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/7/2012
Posts:
350
Minecraft:
timurovich
Xbox:
tfw a PC gamer
Member Details
The only gun in Minecraft that should exist is a flintlock musket. THE ONLY. No machine guns and bazokas, no C4 and flashes. Guns in Minecraft will suck.
That's pure speculation...unless you mean modern guns in Minecraft "will suck". In that case, it's still speculative, but it is at least speculation that I can agree with.
I agree with you Anon, other than that about the flintlock, which in the end means that I only partly agree with you, or whatever.
The problem as I see it is that Minecraft will never feature modern weapons, flintlocks included, due to how they can easily relate to our own reality's violence unlike medievally inspired weapons and lowers the feeling of uncertainty as to where or when the game takes place.
Plus that Mojang don't want minecraft to become a Battlefields game XD
The spirit of minecraft is in the end not the PvP, though that may be arguable it is still for the majority a valid truth. Though much can be done through modding and plugins to simulate more creative or less creative PvP environments the Mojang crew in the end managed to make someone think creatively, in this case the modders. Minecraft is about complexity, and creativity, not only on the playable medium, but through its fanbase, its texturepacks, its mods and its servers as well as the constructions made within. This is why I do not think that any really modern weapons can make it into vanilla, rather keep occurring as mods.
Since we're on the concept of cultural adoption (Minecraft has guns, kids play minecraft, kids will use guns, etc.)
Concepts that we employ such as horribly unrealistic flintlock muskets/rifles and pistols are so postdated that they don't encourage the active use of guns in the real world (guns that in no way resemble each other) that MC would be safe from the threat of cultural indoctrination simply based on these premises.
Bit of a suggestion for the Chu Ko Nu: Have it fire darts with a potion tip at the expense of range(and expense; established nether base and mob farm is required to make potions.) Darts do negligible damage unless tipped with Instant Damage potion.
Also a blowgun, which fires the same darts at more range at the expensive of semiautomatic firing(it charges like a bow).
(P.S. Yoshi, where'd you get the avatar? I mean, I've seen pretty horrible cooking, but that takes the cake.)Also, zander, I LIKE BIG FONTS AND I CANNOT LIE.
But seriously, big and bold text is eye searing. Please don't use them.
I strongly dissagree with this post . I hate guns. Guns should not be added. After the new town shooting idk who to trust any more. Kids think about guns all the time because they play COD and all of those other Shooting games. Guns in games are an influence to kinds and teens. ADDING guns to minecraft will just influenc guns more but on a more cartoonyer level but it still encorages kids with guns. It is scientificly proven that guns in games make kids have a highr risk of shooting people. SO no i Hate this post no offence. Just thinking of New Town makes me cry and dont forget the Colombine shooting.
Large text does not make your point stronger. It is simply obnoxious. More to the point, if you feel the need to post in large bold text, many people will feel justified in not reading your post at all, and simply dismissing you as rude/immature/entitled/trolling/or otherwise not to be taken seriously.
"I hate guns" is not a valid argument. This has nothing to do with what you or anyone else personally does or does not like, with the possible exception of people like Jeb and Notch, who have a final say on what goes into the game or not...and as of this post, they have not come into this thread to voice an opinion on the matter.
There was just several posts about how the types of guns being proposed are significantly dissimilar to modern firearms, and thus would have little to no association with modern firearms. You should read them. Further, don't believe everything you see in the media. If playing a game with guns in it was all it took to make someone a killer, there would be a much higher rate of shootings in the world, on the order of millions. The people who commit those sorts of crimes have much bigger problems than videogames.
"It is scientificly proven that guns in games make kids have a highr risk of shooting people." Cite your source. If you can't show a legitimate scientific study that has proven this, then no it hasn't. The word "scientific" can't just be used randomly, it has qualifications that must be met. However, good luck with this, because to the best of my knowledge, no credible study has been able to find any link to media violence and personal violence. What studies do show this are typically not by accredited/reliable organizations, and tend to be later disproven when challenged by more trustworthy agencies.
You can't really expect to go, "I hate. No offense." and have people not be upset, can you? That kind of statement is completely unnecessary, and if you were worried about it offending people, you shouldn't have made it in the first place. For that matter, if you didn't care if people were offended, you still shouldn't have posted it, because there are rules about trying to pick fights.
I strongly dissagree with this post . I hate guns. Guns should not be added. After the new town shooting idk who to trust any more. Kids think about guns all the time because they play COD and all of those other Shooting games. Guns in games are an influence to kinds and teens. ADDING guns to minecraft will just influenc guns more but on a more cartoonyer level but it still encorages kids with guns. It is scientificly proven that guns in games make kids have a highr risk of shooting people. SO no i Hate this post no offence. Just thinking of New Town makes me cry and dont forget the Colombine shooting.
I just disproved your theory that guns in video games cause real life violence with a single image.
:| :| ok? and aren't i alowed to post my opinions?
Certainly. Just don't expect them to carry much weight if you can't back them up. As I've said before, this is a debate, not a popularity contest. It takes convincing evidence to change people's minds.
thx and i do with i could cite my therory but i sadly cant. the topic on guns today in socity is a bang (no pun inteded) and people are really debating on what guns should be and what they shouldnt be. I am on the side of the safty way of dealing with guns and yes i do know MINECRAFT IS NOT REAL LIFE but still it is an influence. I once read a story about the world ending and this guy was so influenced that he said "if i jump off this clift and live the world will live if i die we are done for" so yes media does have an influence on life.
I don't think you read what I said...
Also, if a guy committed suicide because he read/saw/was told that the world was ending, then he most likely had serious psychological problems. Sooo, no, the media was not at fault for his death.
I strongly dissagree with this post . I hate guns. Guns should not be added. After the new town shooting idk who to trust any more. Kids think about guns all the time because they play COD and all of those other Shooting games. Guns in games are an influence to kinds and teens. ADDING guns to minecraft will just influenc guns more but on a more cartoonyer level but it still encorages kids with guns. It is scientificly proven that guns in games make kids have a highr risk of shooting people. SO no i Hate this post no offence. Just thinking of New Town makes me cry and dont forget the Colombine shooting.
If all people who play violent video games are violent and immoral, then why do I, a fan of violent video games, hate real life violence and volunteer at local charities often?
No, no you are not! Because nearly every poster I've seen that uses this damn phrase does not merely wish to "post my opinions". But they have an inbuilt demand that their opinion carry far more weight than others simply because they posted it.
You may have a right to post your opinion, but others also have a right to ignore your opinion just as this post will be ignored/distorted/misinterpreted.
It's a modus operandi of blatant gratification and hedonistic superiority.
Also:
Let's go to the subject of proof. You may want to jump ship because I'm about to turn this fail into swiss cheese.
1) Scientific Method - Theory vs Proof.
If you find a study in a newspaper that proports to prove something, it automatically FAILS the scientific method, especially if you cannot procure another source.
In science, a topic can easily go from a hypothesis to a conclusion. However, for it to be even a THEORY (let alone a PROOF or LAW), it demands the scrutiny and reproduction of hundreds of other sources; all using the same testing methods, and all arriving at the same results.
Since you could only find this conclusion in a single article that you threw away and probably found in few other places, then this isn't even a THEORY, but just a conclusion which is likely fraught with it's own various problems which alter the results. This means that given the scope of the test, you can have wildly fluctuating results or precise results catered to desired results.
Approaching the scientific method with bias is already a major no-no due to the fact that it is quite suspect to self-fulfilling prophecy. This means that the theory is only such, and I would endanger my credibility to state that it's a sensational jab to create irrational response than logical commiseration.
2) LOL, Scientific method in sociological studies
Recreate a situation with a hundred people and you'll get 100 different results.
FIRST: Go to 20 individuals who have lost family members due to gun-related violence. The thought of guns is likely to find resistance.
SECOND: Go to 20 individuals whom have had their homes broken into. The thought of guns is likely to find company.
THIRD: Go to 20 individuals whom secure your national borders. The thought of guns is likely to find company.
FOURTH: Go to 20 disenfranchised individuals like overprotective mothers, hipsters, and social yuppies. The thought of guns is likely to find resistance. This is because they float around the messages of the media and are more easily swayed by it's trappings.
FIFTH: Go to 20 prisoners whom have committed violent acts. The thought of guns is (surprisingly) likely to find resistance.
Here's the major point, YOU CANNOT PROVE SOCIOLOGICAL TENANCIES, EVEN USING SCIENTIFIC MEANS. Humans are naturally illogical beings which do not follow deterministic goals despite the fact that we are programmed deterministically.
All the study has to do is obtain a biased sample of people to create a study which suits their results. This means that it's not a sociological study as you don't have a random audience; it is not credited by any sociological organization; though you can use these unofficial findings to springboard an agenda at any point.
If you go to Alabama, a state which has oddly shown trends toward Republican views for the past 50+ years, you'll find a general consensus toward Republican views. When it comes to random sampling for political motives, you practically CANNOT use participants from trend-states because of that.
I just disproved your theory that guns in video games cause real life violence with a single image.
No. You posted a graph showing a plotting of one set of data against time, with nothing to account for any of the many variables involved.
Scientific studies in real life are surprisingly hard. You have many variables to try to account for, and generally, most "studies" don't.
A good peer reviewed journal will take a lot of time before publishing a paper.
People who submit what they've "discovered" to media outlets for attention generally will not be successful getting peers to say "Your methodology is at least basically sound, and your conclusions agree with your data". That's step _zero_ of a peer review.
Most so-called "studies" in recent years are unable to even pass that level.
===
Is there a link between culture and what the next generation of children are taught? Absolutely.
Culture is defined by the stories that are told, that are passed on to the next generation.
Will one picture of a gun being used cause people to use another gun? No.
But will hundreds of stories of "The hero comes in with a gun, shoots up the bad guy, and everyone is happy ever after" do so? Sure. How many times have you seen children playing with fake guns, or playing "cowboys and Indians".
How many of you even grew up with "Cowboys and Indians" -- as though the cowboys were the good guys and the Indians the bad guys?
How many of you grew up with "fighting against the Indians" as part of your cultural subtext that you never questioned until you got older?
Now realize that you are not typical -- just being on this forum, participating in this discussion means you are not the cultural norm. How many people around you in life do you think never really re-considered what they got in the background growing up?
(In regard to a mod that gives realistic animal genetics):
Would you really rather have bees that make diamonds and oil with magical genetic blocks?
... did I really ask that?
Quote my post so I can reply to it.
Most of us actually agree with that.
That's pure speculation...unless you mean modern guns in Minecraft "will suck". In that case, it's still speculative, but it is at least speculation that I can agree with.
The problem as I see it is that Minecraft will never feature modern weapons, flintlocks included, due to how they can easily relate to our own reality's violence unlike medievally inspired weapons and lowers the feeling of uncertainty as to where or when the game takes place.
Plus that Mojang don't want minecraft to become a Battlefields game XD
The spirit of minecraft is in the end not the PvP, though that may be arguable it is still for the majority a valid truth. Though much can be done through modding and plugins to simulate more creative or less creative PvP environments the Mojang crew in the end managed to make someone think creatively, in this case the modders. Minecraft is about complexity, and creativity, not only on the playable medium, but through its fanbase, its texturepacks, its mods and its servers as well as the constructions made within. This is why I do not think that any really modern weapons can make it into vanilla, rather keep occurring as mods.
[Citation needed]
Concepts that we employ such as horribly unrealistic flintlock muskets/rifles and pistols are so postdated that they don't encourage the active use of guns in the real world (guns that in no way resemble each other) that MC would be safe from the threat of cultural indoctrination simply based on these premises.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
(some random image I found of Lady Eboshi from Princess Mononoke, a movie which you ought to watch if you haven't already)
Will encourage children to misuse this
(Some random image I found of a Glock 17)
Also a blowgun, which fires the same darts at more range at the expensive of semiautomatic firing(it charges like a bow).
(P.S. Yoshi, where'd you get the avatar? I mean, I've seen pretty horrible cooking, but that takes the cake.)Also, zander, I LIKE BIG FONTS AND I CANNOT LIE.
But seriously, big and bold text is eye searing. Please don't use them.
Thank you for taking the time to bump this thread.
I just disproved your theory that guns in video games cause real life violence with a single image.
Certainly. Just don't expect them to carry much weight if you can't back them up. As I've said before, this is a debate, not a popularity contest. It takes convincing evidence to change people's minds.
However, I must say that I'm glad to see you're concerned about media influencing the behavior of guns.
I don't think you read what I said...
Also, if a guy committed suicide because he read/saw/was told that the world was ending, then he most likely had serious psychological problems. Sooo, no, the media was not at fault for his death.
If all people who play violent video games are violent and immoral, then why do I, a fan of violent video games, hate real life violence and volunteer at local charities often?
No, no you are not! Because nearly every poster I've seen that uses this damn phrase does not merely wish to "post my opinions". But they have an inbuilt demand that their opinion carry far more weight than others simply because they posted it.
You may have a right to post your opinion, but others also have a right to ignore your opinion just as this post will be ignored/distorted/misinterpreted.
It's a modus operandi of blatant gratification and hedonistic superiority.
Also:
Let's go to the subject of proof. You may want to jump ship because I'm about to turn this fail into swiss cheese.
1) Scientific Method - Theory vs Proof.
If you find a study in a newspaper that proports to prove something, it automatically FAILS the scientific method, especially if you cannot procure another source.
In science, a topic can easily go from a hypothesis to a conclusion. However, for it to be even a THEORY (let alone a PROOF or LAW), it demands the scrutiny and reproduction of hundreds of other sources; all using the same testing methods, and all arriving at the same results.
Since you could only find this conclusion in a single article that you threw away and probably found in few other places, then this isn't even a THEORY, but just a conclusion which is likely fraught with it's own various problems which alter the results. This means that given the scope of the test, you can have wildly fluctuating results or precise results catered to desired results.
Approaching the scientific method with bias is already a major no-no due to the fact that it is quite suspect to self-fulfilling prophecy. This means that the theory is only such, and I would endanger my credibility to state that it's a sensational jab to create irrational response than logical commiseration.
2) LOL, Scientific method in sociological studies
Recreate a situation with a hundred people and you'll get 100 different results.
FIRST: Go to 20 individuals who have lost family members due to gun-related violence. The thought of guns is likely to find resistance.
SECOND: Go to 20 individuals whom have had their homes broken into. The thought of guns is likely to find company.
THIRD: Go to 20 individuals whom secure your national borders. The thought of guns is likely to find company.
FOURTH: Go to 20 disenfranchised individuals like overprotective mothers, hipsters, and social yuppies. The thought of guns is likely to find resistance. This is because they float around the messages of the media and are more easily swayed by it's trappings.
FIFTH: Go to 20 prisoners whom have committed violent acts. The thought of guns is (surprisingly) likely to find resistance.
Here's the major point, YOU CANNOT PROVE SOCIOLOGICAL TENANCIES, EVEN USING SCIENTIFIC MEANS. Humans are naturally illogical beings which do not follow deterministic goals despite the fact that we are programmed deterministically.
All the study has to do is obtain a biased sample of people to create a study which suits their results. This means that it's not a sociological study as you don't have a random audience; it is not credited by any sociological organization; though you can use these unofficial findings to springboard an agenda at any point.
If you go to Alabama, a state which has oddly shown trends toward Republican views for the past 50+ years, you'll find a general consensus toward Republican views. When it comes to random sampling for political motives, you practically CANNOT use participants from trend-states because of that.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Well, that's basically what most of the pro-gun side is saying.
No. You posted a graph showing a plotting of one set of data against time, with nothing to account for any of the many variables involved.
Scientific studies in real life are surprisingly hard. You have many variables to try to account for, and generally, most "studies" don't.
A good peer reviewed journal will take a lot of time before publishing a paper.
People who submit what they've "discovered" to media outlets for attention generally will not be successful getting peers to say "Your methodology is at least basically sound, and your conclusions agree with your data". That's step _zero_ of a peer review.
Most so-called "studies" in recent years are unable to even pass that level.
===
Is there a link between culture and what the next generation of children are taught? Absolutely.
Culture is defined by the stories that are told, that are passed on to the next generation.
Will one picture of a gun being used cause people to use another gun? No.
But will hundreds of stories of "The hero comes in with a gun, shoots up the bad guy, and everyone is happy ever after" do so? Sure. How many times have you seen children playing with fake guns, or playing "cowboys and Indians".
How many of you even grew up with "Cowboys and Indians" -- as though the cowboys were the good guys and the Indians the bad guys?
How many of you grew up with "fighting against the Indians" as part of your cultural subtext that you never questioned until you got older?
Now realize that you are not typical -- just being on this forum, participating in this discussion means you are not the cultural norm. How many people around you in life do you think never really re-considered what they got in the background growing up?
* Promoting this week: Captive Minecraft 4, Winter Realm. Aka: Vertical Vanilla Viewing. Clicky!
* My channel with Mystcraft, and general Minecraft Let's Plays: http://www.youtube.com/user/Keybounce.
* See all my video series: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-editions/minecraft-editions-show-your/2865421-keybounces-list-of-creation-threads
(In regard to a mod that gives realistic animal genetics):
Would you really rather have bees that make diamonds and oil with magical genetic blocks?
... did I really ask that?