Pvp Can not stand it

You only need to read just one of his posts, he just repeats the same BS over and over on all the others.

 

Yea i just skip his posts.

 

A role that involves you going around attacking people like a thug.

I'm not trying to do anything, the game allows you to force people to do something against their will. That is inequality. Since this is "just a game" there is no reason for that to happen.

"It's just a game", or "it's not real", or "I can tell fantasy from reality" is a red herring fallacy. If you were actually as detached from it as you claim, you wouldn't feel anything while playing at all. Including getting any enjoyment from "playing the role that I enjoy". You are getting the same psychological kick from it that you would in real life, doing it in a game just allows you to indulge in anti-social behavior without consequences.

I get my kick from the feeling of advancement. RPGs make it easy to get ahead in life. That is the what I enjoy about them. In my own life I feel blocked at every turn. Held back by everything, including myself. An RPG gives me a way to move forward. And when someone PKs me, that is getting in my way. Precisely what I don't want while playing. Therefore I have an extreme adverse reaction. I already have enough obstacles in my life, I don't want to put up with them in a game too.
That's only one reason I don't like open-PvP, but it is the most pertinent to this facet of the topic.

Further, that would only apply if I was talking about the AI in game. I'm not. I am talking about player characters, which do have an actual person on the other end of them. The character may not exist, but the player does.
If you are capable of feeling enjoyment from an aspect of the game, then we are just as capable of disliking it or even hating it.
The fact that you don't care that we don't like it, or even hate it, and think it's okay to force us into it anyway, means you have no empathy towards us.

You, and your ilk, demand that everyone respect you and let you play how you want, but none of you are willing to give even the slightest consideration back to us. You don't care how your behavior makes us feel, or why it does. You just want to get yourself off, and you're willing to use us to do it. That's the behavior of a sociopath.

 

I don't know why you think aggression is a primary impulse, but you're full of crap.

"In psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain."

"models of aggression
Unfortunately, aggressive models not only show people ways to act aggressively, but also send the message that an aggressive response is right, correct, and acceptable. Exposure to aggressive models makes violent behavior seem more appropriate because it stimulates aggressive thoughts and feelings.

aggressive models in the media
Evidence consistently disconfirms the catharsis idea that expressing an emotion can keep it from "building up." Aggressing or witnessing aggression not only doesn't make people feel calmer, it makes them more angry."

"Situations that favor superficial thinking often favor aggression. Thinking carefully can reduce aggression, but many factors interfere with people's motivation and ability to process information carefully. Whatever grabs our attention most easily has the greatest impact on our behavior. In anger-inducing situations, the self-esteem threat or other provocation that produced the anger is usually foremost in our attention.

Individual differences. Some people are better at avoiding aggression than others. Interpersonal aggression is guided by fundamental cognitive and social processes. It is motivated by desires for mastery, connectedness, and esteem. It can be directed by firmly established or situationally accessible attitudes and norms, depending on whether or not we have the ability and motivation to think things through."

"2. Instrumental Aggression
Instrumental aggression, also known as predatory aggression, is marked by behaviors that are intended to achieve a larger goal. Instrumental aggression is often carefully planned and usually exists as a means to an end. Hurting another person in a robbery or car-jacking is an example of this type of aggression. The aggressors goal is to obtain money or a vehicle, and harming another individual is the means to achieve that aim."

You have a goal from your aggression, you're getting off on it. Which would make what you're doing a less extreme form of the same psychology as thrill killers. "Its just a game" being the arbitrary exception that you use to make the behavior okay.

Self control is civilized.
Whether you are doing it in a game or not, you are still indulging in anti-social behavior. Sports evolved to redirect aggressive impulses into more social avenues. There is nothing sporting about open-pvp. It is about inequality. Duels are sporting. Even BP in its way is sporting. Open-PvP is about being no better than an animal.

Yes it is, just on a small scale. It indulges the most petty and aggressive primitive instincts.

"when you actually don't know how life beyond morality works."
One, what does this have to do with anything I said?
Two, I'm curious as to what it's even supposed to mean. There is no such thing as life beyond morality. You sound like the sort of moron that thinks morals are the product of a civilized world and without civilization everyone would become a monster. Ignoring the fact that if that were true, neither would have evolved in the first place. Humans are hardwired for cooperation, it's an evolutionary trait.
If you actually knew anything about the real world, you would know that people in the worst parts of the world, tend to be some of the most kind and sharing. And that when communities experience catastrophe, most people work together to fix things. It's only a minority that take advantage of it to "act out".
Three, this sounds like the sort of pretentious BS middle class emo types spout when they want to sound deep. Even though they've never actually suffered through anything serious in their protected little lives.
I've almost been homeless several times. I've had to live with a meth addict. I've had my entire life ripped apart. I struggle daily with manic-depression and anxiety issues. I know what it's like to suffer and deal with real stress.

 

lol. Firstly, Statecraft is beyond morality. So, that's where life works beyond morality. Is there any morality in actions of CIA, MOSSAD, Mi6, RAW? and yet they are the ultimate guardians of national interest.Secondly, the models of psychology you have given relate to aggression in terms of abnormal behavior. When threatened by an external stimulus that seeks to cause harm, the behavior in countering that threat also counts as aggression actually. And that aggression is innate, controlled by sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system.As for the rest, I didn't have time to read that long-ass post.

 

According to whom? Just because you claim something is true, doesn't mean it is.
1. Those organizations are in place to deal with those who have already stepped beyond morality.
2. Those who chose to step beyond morality, don't deserve any consideration in return. They have already placed themselves above everyone else.
3. The organizations themselves are neither moral or immoral.

Further, that is a strawman.

Wrong. The articles were about aggression period. None of them said anything about abnormal aggression.

ag·gres·sion
əˈɡreSHən/
noun
noun: aggression
hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.
"his chin was jutting with aggression"
synonyms: hostility, aggressiveness, belligerence, bellicosity, force, violence; More

the action of attacking without provocation, especially in beginning a quarrel or war.
"the dictator resorted to armed aggression"

Sure you do, you're just a coward that's afraid of being proven wrong. You responded to the bits you THOUGHT you could actually counter, then ignored the rest because you can't handle actual logic and reason.

 

lol. Ok. I am wrong. You are right.

 

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

 

Yeh. Yeh. Whatever that means.

 

It's a logical fallacy. Such fallacies are used by those who cannot put up an argument in the face of something they don't like, and resort to illogical responses in order to avoid thinking about what was said.

Short version, you act as if my response is funny, then use a sarcastic dismissal to avoid thinking about it, or having to come up with a real response.

 

Man really do you have to go as far as to post articles from sites. If you are so insistent, please go research flight and fight response in humans. You are just twisting my word "aggression". I told you its a basic human impulse and it is. When I said aggression it also implied need for stimulation. Who doesn't need an adrenaline rush?AND these are not your arguments for GOD'S sake. You are copying everything from different sites. From all these post, you are actually making yourself look like a psychopath who is more aggressive than actually the person supporting aggression.

 

That isn't an article, it's a definition. (strawman)
Fight or flight is a response to a perceived threat. (irrelevant)
You chose the word, I'm not twisting anything. It means what it means. If you failed to say what you actually mean, that's your fault, not mine. (Equivocation)
No it isn't. (Proof? Here is yet more in support of what I've said: http://www.healthline.com/health/aggressive-behavior)
No it didn't. The word aggression has nothing to do with stimulation. Further, stimulation can come in many forms, and the kind you're talking about is not only primitive, it's unhealthy.
No one NEEDS an adrenaline rush, except people who are addicted to it.

I am using information from reasonably credible sources in support of my argument. Unlike you, I back what I say up, instead of talking out my ass.

If you really think that, then you clearly have no clue what a psychopath is.

"There are different views as to which personality dimensions are more central in regard to psychopathy. Besides dimensions described elsewhere in this article, studies have linked psychopathy to alternative dimensions such as antagonism (high), conscientiousness (low) and anxiousness (low, or sometimes high). Psychopathy has also been linked to high psychoticism—a theorized dimension referring to tough, aggressive or hostile tendencies. Aspects of this that appear associated with psychopathy are lack of socialization and responsibility, impulsivity, sensation-seeking (in some cases), and aggression"

That describes you way more than me.

 

If I prove that aggression is primary human impulse in addition to the flight and fight response which you said is IRRELEVANT when it clearly is not, irrespective of its social acceptance. I will have you say sorry on this forum. And I will show you articles that will prove that its primary human impulse. You are acting like you are some bigshot, when you are only good at ticking people off. I will show you what a researched argument is instead of just using flashy words to prove your point. You are academically challenging me, I am going to show you how academically you prove an argument.

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pne/7/4/601.html
http://www.slideshare.net/sssfcpsychology/the-role-of-neural-and-hormonal-factors-in-aggression
After you read these , come back to me and claim that aggression is not a primary human impulse. If something is biologically being controlled by hormones and neurotransmitters, its becomes a PRIMARY impulse even if it involves abnormal behavior, the difference would be off degrees not the presence or absence of it.

 

If you could, you already would have, instead of telling me you will.

A primary impulse is one that is PRIMARY to life. Such as the need for food and shelter. However, the notion of a primary impulse isn't even a thing in psychology or biology.

It is an impulse, it is not a primary impulse since it relates to specific circumstances. Aggression is considered an anti-social impulse in modern society.
Fight or flight is irrelevant to this discussion. It is also not a primary impulse, since it is also relates to specific circumstances.

"The ability to control impulses, or more specifically control the desire to act on them, is an important factor in personality and socialization. Deferred gratification, also known as impulse control, is an example of this, concerning impulses primarily relating to things that a person wants or desires.

"Many psychological problems are characterized by a loss of control or a lack of control in specific situations. Usually, this lack of control is part of a pattern of behavior that also involves other maladaptive thoughts and actions, such as substance abuse problems or sexual disorders like the paraphilias (e.g. pedophilia and exhibitionism). When loss of control is only a component of a disorder, it usually does not have to be a part of the behavior pattern, and other symptoms must also be present for the diagnosis to be made." (Franklin[2])"

The rest is just you lashing out childishly.

 

Fight or flight is a response to a perceived threat. (irrelevant) Just because you are saying?
You chose the word, I'm not twisting anything. It means what it means. If you failed to say what you actually mean, that's your fault, not mine. (Equivocation) (I don't even care if you twist them)
No it isn't. (Proof? Here is yet more in support of what I've said: http://www.healthline.com/health/aggressive-behavior) You have no depth of knowledge, show me a harvard journal example and you are repeating one thing over and over.
No it didn't. The word aggression has nothing to do with stimulation. Further, stimulation can come in many forms, and the kind you're talking about is not only primitive, it's unhealthy.
No one NEEDS an adrenaline rush, except people who are addicted to it. Its a matter of perspective, and diversity which you dont seem to accept.

I am using information from reasonably credible sources in support of my argument. Unlike you, I back what I say up, instead of talking out my ass.

If you really think that, then you clearly have no clue what a psychopath is.I am absolutely sure what a psychopath it.

 

A primary impulse is one that is PRIMARY to life. Such as the need for food and shelter. Something biologically controlled is primary to life

It is an impulse, it is not a primary impulse since it relates to specific circumstances. Aggression is considered an anti-social impulse in modern society. It doesn't relate to specific circumstances, it can appear in ANY circumstance
Fight or flight is irrelevant to this discussion. It is also not a primary impulse, since it is also relates to specific circumstances. It isn't? Kudos to your knowledge

 

Aggression and violence is a primitive trait in humanity that we have for the most part evolved from. Some people still have a barbaric thought process and desire to inflict torture upon another in any form.

Aggression and violence may be a primitive trait of humanity but that doesn't mean people should let it control them. Humanity has for the most part evolved from those days to reduce this trait.

On another note it sounds as if the hardcore PvPers/PKers are afraid that if a PvE option ends up existing everyone would use it and they wouldn't have anyone to attack. This fear is them admitting the majority of the server is PvE focused not PvP focused in their eyes. Either way I am done with this argument as I will watch quietly as the hardcore PvPers/PKers eventually cause this server to have a lower population than a private one if they are left unchecked.

 

If you read my previous posts. I said that ANTI-PK buff should be made available. However, that guy had to go and bring in crappy site examples into it to prove he is some kind of an academic guru.

 

According to who?
Like I already said, there is no such thing as a "primary impulse" in any academic sense. I tried to find a definition for it, and all I could find was some articles on stoic philosophy.
My understanding was that a primary impulse was something that is required for life, like food, water and shelter, but apparently it isn't a term that's used at all. Which means everything you've said is utter BS.

The word primary means "of chief importance; principal." Aggression and fight or flight responses are only useful when there is an actual threat. That's a specific function, not a primary one.

All of which has nothing to do with whether or not it's healthy to indulge those impulses, regardless of this being a game or not.
If you go around attacking people, that is anti-social behavior, and this being a game is no excuse. You are still targeting real people, albeit vicariously through their characters.

Major psychology websites are crappy?
I'm not trying to prove anything. I presented a position, and you decided to contest it. It's not my fault you aren't any good at it.