Pvp Can not stand it

I wasn't referring to you specifically but have heard multiple other people say it should be a pure PvP server without any regulations. As far as that other person he wants it to be geared towards the PvE side with PvP being irrelevant even though it will still exist. My view is make a button that costs nothing but make PvP mode give a moderate bonus so PvP mode is promoted towards players. The view I have is PvP should be promoted but not required. It shouldn't cost PvE players any more to play their style than it does PvP players. However, PvP mode players should get bonuses above PvE bonus players so people are enticed to enter PvP mode. It is just others have bashed the neutral view and discarded it. The last paragraph of my previous post was towards them not you.

This is a game and not real life so different standards apply. Yes, There are regulations against griefing but someone PKing another once in a blue moon isn't against the policy standards here. You are reaching right now and quite frankly it is starting to make the case for a non-PvP mode to not even be considered.

 

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. lmao now it has come to the definition of impulse from discussion of aggression? Treat it as impulse, trait, whatever. The argument for aggression is the focus and its primacy in human life.

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. So, you mean to tell me that you can live without neurotransmitters and hormones and their functions are not important for your life?

All you have left to say is "according to who, according to who". Its according to Robert Feldman. Go read his book.

 

You can only consider aggression a primary anything, if you think humans are an inherently predatory species.

Okay, now you're just being stupid. Either willfully, or because you simply are. I don't even know what point you're trying to make now. Everything humans do has something to do with hormones and neurotransmitters. That doesn't make every single emotion and behavior "primary".

It also has nothing to do with you indulging in anti-social behavior.

 

Now accept it that you have nothing else left except for personal attacks. And you are stupid enough to toe the line you have taken instead to accepting something which I have proven through YOUR BELOVED WAY OF RESEARCHED ARGUMENT. In sum, YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT. YOU SHOULD HAVE STOPPED WHEN YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU HAVE WON THIS ARGUMENT. And its the last post I am going to waste on an illiterate like you.

 

I want PvE and PvP to be given EQUAL relevance.
If people actually enjoy PvP, then they shouldn't need any bonuses to do it.
It shouldn't need to be promoted if people really do enjoy it.

"However, PvP mode players should get bonuses above PvE bonus players so people are enticed to enter PvP mode."
Why? If they have to be enticed to do it, then it isn't worth doing for it's own sake.

"This is a game and not real life so different standards apply."
Why? The psychology behind it is no different. If they really could totally separate it as fiction and reality, then they would feel nothing.
If someone cries at a sad movie, no one ever says "what's the matter, can't you tell fiction from reality?" Because there is no stigma attached to it.
It's only when the fiction in question is allowing someone to indulge in anti-social behavior that people start pulling out that little cliche. Then suddenly it becomes a valid excuse for pretty much anything. Often followed by "it's art". As a defense for allowing voyeuristic viewing of simulations, of things that normally would be illegal.
Or in this case, allowing a consequence free environment to indulge in anti-social behavior. "It's just a game", is just an excuse.

 

I didn't make a personal attack, I said you were being stupid. Because what you said was incredibly ignorant.

You didn't prove anything, since you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Just because aggression is a natural, and normal, response SOMETIMES, doesn't contradict anything I said. Nor does it support what you've said.
Just because you have aggressive desires, doesn't make it okay to indulge them. Nor does it make them "primary" to life.

The rest is just the angry ranting of a child.

 

Angry rantings of a child! Indeed!

 

Why didn't you just go ahead and say "I know you are, but what am I?"
Seriously, you've degenerated to the point of schoolyard sniping. Time to walk on home, BOY.

 

lol. I am still basking in the glory of having you stoop to personal attacks. Its not that you weren't attacking personally from your first reply, but thats its your only weapon right now.

 

And now you construct a fantasy to defend your ego.
The primitive defense mechanism of denial.

Also projection. You have nothing else to say, because you've already shown just how ignorant you are. So now you project that onto me, acting as if my pointing out your ignorance and childish behavior are personal attacks.

How pathetic.

 

Keep talking like that. Its enjoyable. Because, you couldn't say anything where it mattered. Now, at-least I am tired of arguing back because you will have nothing substantial to say other than "you are idiot" "according to who" and you will continue to share one article again and again that supports your perspective and your shallow understanding. And, Please stop rewording my previous posts.

 

I had plenty to say when it mattered, that's why you can't talk about anything but me now. You couldn't defeat my argument, so you have nothing else to attack now.
I didn't say "you are an idiot" I said you are being one. It's not the same thing.
According to who, is a valid question when someone is saying something that I cannot verify. Google may not be perfect, but when I do a search for stuff you've said and can't find a single thing to support it... I want to know what you're basing your views on. I've spent years developing my work on this sort of psychology and sociology, I'm even writing a book about it. Who or what are you basing what you've said on?

Right... so basically you like it better when no one knows what they're talking about, so you can get away with talking a bunch of BS. I don't roll like that.

You tried to post articles that you thought supported your position too, they just didn't. Because you didn't know what you were talking about.

How precisely do you think you can support your assertion that I have "shallow understanding?" You apparently think every single thing hormones and neurotransmitters are involved with in the human body, are all "primary" functions and traits. Regardless of the fact that one way or another, they are involved in everything that happens in the body and every single emotion we experience.
There is no use of the word primary that works in context with aggression, not unless you think humans are an inherently predatory species and require aggression to survive.
If you think that, it's just a further sign of your ignorance.

 

Yeh you had plenty to say. For example "You are ignorant" "You are an idiot" "Its not proven". All you are now trying to do is to steer this discussion away to "social acceptance" discussion. I don't if its social acceptable or not. Aggression is primary, innate behavior which humans are able to cope through defense mechanisms. Use of defense mechanisms DOESN'T mean that it doesn't exist. It only isn't exhibited in an primitive way. Instead, it is channeled into PVP IN GAMES, army, wild sports etc. HOW MUCH OF A BRAIN IS NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THIS? The purpose of my first post was to communicate this only. Ignorant fool. AND DON'T REPEAT YOUR WORDS AGAIN AND AGAIN they won't become correct with repetition. And it would be great if you could read Sigmund Freud Personality theory. It can end your irrational blabbering. And from your posts I can tell you didn't even read 1 of the two sources I posted earlier. That is why I said, arguing with you is futile. Because now your purpose is not to argue but somehow defend your WRONG position.

 

You are ignorant. You are being an idiot. You haven't said anything that is proven.

I'm not doing anything, you're the one that arbitrarily declared yourself the winner and made the whole thing about me, instead of what I've been saying, because you can't deal with what I've said.

"Aggression is primary, innate behavior"
Again, according to who? Where are you getting this from? What basis do you have for this assertion? I can find no proof to back this notion up, which means you're pulling it out of your ass.

When did I ever say anything didn't exist? You are calling aggression primary behavior. You aren't just saying it's natural, you're saying it's essential to life. Which is total BS. It may have been in neolithic times, when animals were still a threat, but since human technology has reduced the sources of threats to mainly one, each other, aggression has been nothing but a millstone around our necks causing incalculable problems.

Channeling a negative emotion into something else, is the same as catharsis, and that has been proven to not work. Trying to "vent" or "channel" aggression, just makes you more aggressive. For two reasons. Firstly, because being aggressive doesn't remove the emotion, it enforces it.
Secondly, it creates a reward system. You go into the game to "vent" or "channel", and that releases epinephrine and nonepinephrine. Which gives you a rush. It feels good, which makes you want more. When you get it, that causes a release of dopamine, the reward drug of the brain. You begin to crave more, so you engage in further acts of aggression in order to get it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01303/internet-ranting-and-the-myth-catharsis
https://www.researchgate.net/public...rsis_and_Media_Violence_A_Conceptual_Analysis
http://angermentor.com/secrets-of-anger-addiction-and-why-rage-feels-real-damn-good

You are using outdated theories that have been proven wrong.

PvPing does not release aggression, it makes you more aggressive. Getting revenge on someone who PKs you, will not release the aggression you feel, it will only create more.

The only one repeating them self, is you. You can't even accurately communicate what you're trying to say, and everything you've said is extremely ignorant.

What does personality theory have to do with any of this? Once again you're just tossing something totally irrelevant in, to try and make yourself sound more authoritative.

Those articles you posted don't support your position at all. I have never denied that aggression was natural. Just because it's natural, doesn't mean it should be indulged.

 

I'm not doing anything, you're the one that arbitrarily declared yourself the winner and made the whole thing about me, instead of what I've been saying, because you can't deal with what I've said. I can deal with everything you said, because you literally said "NOTHING"

"Aggression is primary, innate behavior"
Again, according to who? Where are you getting this from? What basis do you have for this assertion? I can find no proof to back this notion up, which means you're pulling it out of your ass.Did you read Freud theory?

When did I ever say anything didn't exist? You are calling aggression primary behavior. You aren't just saying it's natural, you're saying it's essential to life. Which is total BS. It may have been in neolithic times, when animals were still a threat, but since human technology has reduced the sources of threats to main one, other humans, aggression has been nothing but a millstone around our necks causing incalculable problems. Show me the post I said its essential to life? Even if I said it still is essential to life. You mean to stay that mad dogs have been eradicated, snakes, other threatening events have been eliminated through technology? Well, technology, if anything, has facilitated the "fight" response in flight and fight. Anyways, I actually said was that it ESSENTIALLY exists for good or for worse, IT CAN EITHER BE DIRECTED INTO VIOLENT BEHAVIOR OR CONSTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. Again, I don't care if its socially acceptable or not.

Channeling a negative emotion into something else, is the same as catharsis, and that has been proven to not work. Trying to "vent" or "channel" aggression, just makes you more aggressive. For two reasons. Firstly, because being aggressive doesn't remove the emotion, it enforces it. NO, it doesn't. Are you 100% sure? I am. Because you didn't read Freud theory which isn't outdated by a long-shot and possibly the most influential theory of psychology.And you don't know the difference between catharsis and channeling, and yet you think you are correct.
Secondly, it creates a reward system. You go into the game to "vent" or "channel"(Are you sure both are same?I am sure you are confusing anger with aggression), and that releases epinephrine and nonepinephrine(They both are essentially related to flight and fight response too, which you rejected as irrelevant to discussion earlier). Which gives you a rush. It feels good, which makes you want more. When you get it, that causes a release of dopamine, the reward drug of the brain. You begin to crave more, so you engage in further acts of aggression in order to get it. SO? IT DOES FOR WHATEVER REASON IT DOES.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...01303/internet-ranting-and-the-myth-catharsis
https://www.researchgate.net/public...rsis_and_Media_Violence_A_Conceptual_Analysis
http://angermentor.com/secrets-of-anger-addiction-and-why-rage-feels-real-damn-good

You are using outdated theories that have been proven wrong. If Freud theory is outdated, you are possibly even more ignorant than i originally thought. Your argument somewhat pertains to the humanistic theory of psychology which is, although, most socially acceptable is the most criticized one.

 

How am I supposed to wait 1 hour after your every reply? If this had been real-life you would have left the room humiliated long ago and I know you love to apply real-life principles to virtual world. Now, you take 1 hour to construct your half-assed argument to strike back at me which are nevertheless as implausible as unresearched one.

 

All I can tell you 2 is make love not war.

 

If you read this guy's ANY post, or conversation with others, apart from me, on this thread. He doesn't seem like a person who would be interested in making peace.

 

Aggression is only one of dozens of emotions and impulses humans have. Just because it exists, doesn't make it essential to anything. That's one of the worst problems with Freud. His theories are far too simplistic and narrow.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that all human behavior is driven by only three impulses?

I fail to see how you think declaring that you don't care if it's acceptable or not works in your favor. You might as well just admit to being a psychopath.

Yes, I am 100% sure. Because there has been a hell of a lot of research into the topic since Freud died, and all of it says he was WRONG. Science doesn't stop moron, it keeps changing as new data comes to light. Freud didn't even base anything off data or observation, and also admitted his ideas were just a framework.

You seem to think that psychology hasn't advanced a single step in over 70 years!

http://study.com/academy/lesson/cat...in-social-psychology-definition-examples.html

http://psychologydegreeguide.org/anger-psychology/

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/myths/myth_30.cfm

http://lifehacker.com/5614548/venting-frustration-will-only-make-your-anger-worse

http://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/antisocial-behavior/catharsis/

Are you serious? You really must be a psychopath if you don't understand why it's a bad idea to make yourself enjoy being aggressive.
There is no "reason", it happens because you don't have the education and self control to stop it. It's no different than someone getting addicted to anything else. It's self destructive and anti-social behavior.

Nothing I've said has anything to do with humanistic psychology. Once again you are tossing out totally irrelevant BS to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.
You sound like a kid that's been reading up on psychology, looking for justifications for your bad behavior.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/why-freud-still-matters-when-he-was-wrong-about-almost-1055800815

 

Right...

You admit you don't care if behavior is socially acceptable or not. AND, you apparently can't comprehend of why making yourself addicted to aggressive behavior is a bad thing.

I have made a rational case, based in CURRENT psychology and science, for why open-pvp is, and promotes, anti-social behavior. I have not once said people should be kept from doing it. NOT ONCE.
Only that I want a way to turn it off for myself, because I want no part in it.

It's only one reason I, and others, want a way to turn off PvP for ourselves anyway. You were the one who felt a need to go down this path, that has ended with you declaring that Freud is the beat all, end all, of psychological thought. Because apparently you think no one has done any further work in psychology in the 70+ years since he died.