Dragon. Agent.
FIrst of all, I just thought I’d point out… You are both misunderstanding what the other is talking about…
I don’t want to be putting words in peoples mouths, but this is what Im getting from you two.
Agent is saying that the effect of exposure to violent media may or may not make them a violent person, depending who that person is. People react differently to the same stimuli.
Dragon is saying that exposure to violence through fantasy is a good way to EXPLORE what violence is, and how you would react.
I don’t believe people want to be violent by nature. And being exposed to the damage caused by violence, may make you rethink it. The other option is to commit them Irl, and find it out that way. Those who do not explore violence, will not know what it means or how it harms other people, so they might commit violence without truely recognizing what they are doing, Because they do not know…
What you should be debating, is whether or not acting violently through media will impact your behavior in a way that leans you more towards violence.
I think that If it does effect you at all, it will only bring out the person you really are inside. Which is most likely due to the ratio of good and bad experiences in life.
In my opinion, those who recognize life as the priority, will be most effected by life. Their reality experiences would greatly outweigh fantasy. But also is the trueth if it is the other way around. It really depends on which one you view as the most important, and not everyone has the same priority of fantasy vs life.
To merge your two ideas, this is what I have concluded from both your contributions:
Fantasy is a good way to explore violence, as opposed to experiences irl. But because different people respond differently, you will always get some people who become violent, some people who are impartial, and some people who know how much violence hurts, so they don’t do it. If they are not exposed to violence, then their tendancies are very vague, and it would soley rely on who that person is. And to be honest, dragon had mentioned that violence is a part of survival, and this is true. If you encounter something unkown, you will be weary and want to defend yourself. Your first instinct is “am I in danger?” not “I wonder if it wants to play with me”. So it’s far more likely that you would resort to violence in a position that requires you to make a choice. Exposure through media will amplify your own ‘morals’ for lack of a better word… So exposure to violence could make people very kind and empathetic, or it could turn them into very violent people… But without exposure, due to the way life functions, you are actually more likely to resort to violence.
To my view, you are both very well correct, and not really arguing against each other… In the beginning, you guys were on the same track, but It only took a couple of posts near the beginning where this split into debating two different things… How you managed to continue to merge the views of two different things into one debate…
You guys are both on the subject, drawing using two different shapes, but the same crayon, and then debating who’s color is correct based on it’s shape.
Am I not correct in this?
I urge you both to go back and read the first few posts you both made, and how you responded.