Then you better admit that there is no evidence that the creative arts 'soothe the savage breast', that musicians and artists are grossly overpaid, and that we cannot persuade anyone to do anything.
What this mean is that unless anyone can prove a direct causal link, we cannot say that militant Islam had anything to do with Sept 11, 2001. For all we know, it could have been a brain infection that compelled 19 Muslims to commit suicide via crashing airliners into tall buildings.
Religions have nothing to do with good and evil acts. People who are associated with religions often have unexplained sudden compulsion to give some of their monies away or kill others for no reasons.
Charles Manson and other notorious murderers should be excused since we do not know what went thru their minds and are forbidden to speculate on the intangible influential factors that made possible their deeds.
"Why worthless? Does music need to turn savages into princes for music to have any value?
Not impossible in the same way it's not impossible for a beautiful work of art to inspire a person to kill. That's nowhere near likely enough for concern."
Worthless if you consider what Grossman argued to be worthless. Face the music (pun intended), if you honestly believe that the arts have value to the moral and intellectual development of a person, then equally valid would be violent entertainment, especially the interactive kind. Critics like you and the Hollywood types want to have it your way: When someone does something good because of the creative arts, you have no problems putting on false modesty and spew flowery rhetoric on how much you contribute to humanity. But when someone does something bad because of the products that came from those same creative minds, you are equally quick to disassociate the human mind from your products and the same ability to influence.
"That's right. The irony is nevertheless plain to see."
The irony that I see so far is that those who have never read and think about what Grossman wrote have no problems criticizing him and his work.
"The only difference appears to be that killing in times of war is somehow perceived to be legitimate regardless of the motives for whichever side you're on, and that the role of psychologists like Grossman is to help young cadets come to grips with the emotional consequences of such a necessary act."
You do not need to go to war. Look at your own paramilitary peacekeeping forces: the local police. They have the authority to openly bear arms and to kill if necessary in belief of a higher cause. Just like the military does. The common theme here is that both the police and the military are controlled environments in training adults on how and when to kill. They do it in virtual as well as real world conditions. They talk with their veterans, especially those who had to take human lives in the course of their duties, on what it feels like to kill and the emotional toll upon a person after the act.
The creative community glorifies killing, as in making the act enjoyable for the person, at least in the virtual world. The police and military forces do not have that luxury, if anything, they discourages such mentality, because they know that what they learned in training (virtual) they may have to do it in the real world.
"You think Grossman would have a bigger problem with that than with fictional violence."
This is where you and critics like you are wrong. The human mind is the source of our problems and solutions. Anything that influences the mind to solve problems and create solutions deserves scrutiny.
I was in Kuwait City after we booted out the Iraqi Army. I saw the results of what one person did to another, especially to women, and wondered what were in their minds before they did those things and while they were doing those things. I look at the violent video games we have today and cannot help but seriously wonder if Grossman may have understated the effects of uncontrolled provocation of passions in a human mind, especially when the entertainment is interactive like games instead of passive reception from watching movies.
"Yes, they should."
Good. Then we can say that artists of all stripes are grossly overpaid since their works are essentially worthless.
"Not impossible, but highly unlikely in the context of violent media. You need something more personal, or at least more profitable, to manipulate a person into killing."
If it is not impossible, then that is exactly what Grossman is and have been trying to explain. We do not live our lives in a moral and intellectual vacuum. If we do not receive those moral and intellectual education from our parents, we will receive them from elsewhere, from a family mentor or even a murderer. Entertainment and political commentaries are no different in that regard.
"Which no doubt lends validity to its content and leads to a much healthier attitude toward shooting the enemy in the head."
This tells me you have not read Grossman's books.
The difference between violent entertainment and the military is that the latter is a controlled environment. Under that is the difference that recruits in the military are of sufficient mental and intellectual maturity to understand the atrocity of killing another human being. For an an Air Force guy like myself, that atrociousness is more intellectual than emotional. But for an Army soldier and a Marine, either trooper are required to know killing at a much more physically personal level and that made the atrociousness of the act more emotional.
This crucial difference is exactly what Grossman tries to make clear but people in their knee-jerk reactions to any alleged infringement of the First Amendment rights immediately ignored.
Re: Re: Ironic considering his career
No. The real hypocrisy here is the praise of one expression of art as a valid influence on the human mind while equally denying another expression.
Re:
Then you better admit that there is no evidence that the creative arts 'soothe the savage breast', that musicians and artists are grossly overpaid, and that we cannot persuade anyone to do anything.
Grossman On Violent Entertainment
What this mean is that unless anyone can prove a direct causal link, we cannot say that militant Islam had anything to do with Sept 11, 2001. For all we know, it could have been a brain infection that compelled 19 Muslims to commit suicide via crashing airliners into tall buildings.
Religions have nothing to do with good and evil acts. People who are associated with religions often have unexplained sudden compulsion to give some of their monies away or kill others for no reasons.
Charles Manson and other notorious murderers should be excused since we do not know what went thru their minds and are forbidden to speculate on the intangible influential factors that made possible their deeds.
Re:
"Why worthless? Does music need to turn savages into princes for music to have any value?
Not impossible in the same way it's not impossible for a beautiful work of art to inspire a person to kill. That's nowhere near likely enough for concern."
Worthless if you consider what Grossman argued to be worthless. Face the music (pun intended), if you honestly believe that the arts have value to the moral and intellectual development of a person, then equally valid would be violent entertainment, especially the interactive kind. Critics like you and the Hollywood types want to have it your way: When someone does something good because of the creative arts, you have no problems putting on false modesty and spew flowery rhetoric on how much you contribute to humanity. But when someone does something bad because of the products that came from those same creative minds, you are equally quick to disassociate the human mind from your products and the same ability to influence.
"That's right. The irony is nevertheless plain to see."
The irony that I see so far is that those who have never read and think about what Grossman wrote have no problems criticizing him and his work.
"The only difference appears to be that killing in times of war is somehow perceived to be legitimate regardless of the motives for whichever side you're on, and that the role of psychologists like Grossman is to help young cadets come to grips with the emotional consequences of such a necessary act."
You do not need to go to war. Look at your own paramilitary peacekeeping forces: the local police. They have the authority to openly bear arms and to kill if necessary in belief of a higher cause. Just like the military does. The common theme here is that both the police and the military are controlled environments in training adults on how and when to kill. They do it in virtual as well as real world conditions. They talk with their veterans, especially those who had to take human lives in the course of their duties, on what it feels like to kill and the emotional toll upon a person after the act.
The creative community glorifies killing, as in making the act enjoyable for the person, at least in the virtual world. The police and military forces do not have that luxury, if anything, they discourages such mentality, because they know that what they learned in training (virtual) they may have to do it in the real world.
"You think Grossman would have a bigger problem with that than with fictional violence."
This is where you and critics like you are wrong. The human mind is the source of our problems and solutions. Anything that influences the mind to solve problems and create solutions deserves scrutiny.
I was in Kuwait City after we booted out the Iraqi Army. I saw the results of what one person did to another, especially to women, and wondered what were in their minds before they did those things and while they were doing those things. I look at the violent video games we have today and cannot help but seriously wonder if Grossman may have understated the effects of uncontrolled provocation of passions in a human mind, especially when the entertainment is interactive like games instead of passive reception from watching movies.
Re:
"Yes, they should."
Good. Then we can say that artists of all stripes are grossly overpaid since their works are essentially worthless.
"Not impossible, but highly unlikely in the context of violent media. You need something more personal, or at least more profitable, to manipulate a person into killing."
If it is not impossible, then that is exactly what Grossman is and have been trying to explain. We do not live our lives in a moral and intellectual vacuum. If we do not receive those moral and intellectual education from our parents, we will receive them from elsewhere, from a family mentor or even a murderer. Entertainment and political commentaries are no different in that regard.
"Which no doubt lends validity to its content and leads to a much healthier attitude toward shooting the enemy in the head."
This tells me you have not read Grossman's books.
The difference between violent entertainment and the military is that the latter is a controlled environment. Under that is the difference that recruits in the military are of sufficient mental and intellectual maturity to understand the atrocity of killing another human being. For an an Air Force guy like myself, that atrociousness is more intellectual than emotional. But for an Army soldier and a Marine, either trooper are required to know killing at a much more physically personal level and that made the atrociousness of the act more emotional.
This crucial difference is exactly what Grossman tries to make clear but people in their knee-jerk reactions to any alleged infringement of the First Amendment rights immediately ignored.
Re: Apparently the Lt.Col. has never served...
"Apparently the Lt.Col. has never served in the combat MOS's."
Grossman was an Army Ranger. His bio is not that difficult to find.