US ARMY to sponsor

[kosmo]

1 week ban for being stupid...Army

[Rudz]

omg

Paintball is violent???? Uh oh....damn..lol.ok its violent..cuz ryan said so.....and so is the baseball bat solution.....so yeah I guess violence is good..without it this country would be a buncha wusses.....but were not..were a violent society..so go ahead and sponsor paintball....but when the army of one commercial comes out showing paintball palyes, I don't wanna hear it..cuz were violent..remember....

[kosmo]

I was being sarcastic. It was the last day of my 4 year contract. The army decided to ignore that.

[slade]

I was being sarcastic. It was the last day of my 4 year contract. The army decided to ignore that.

it was a joke.

/not that i would be surprised if you made gay porn...

[tyrion2323]

If we're going to get into an argument about what is and isn't...

So no, paintball is not technically violent.

So yes, paintball is technically a sport.

It's amazing how people "know" so many different things.

[CoolHand]

why is it violent?

i dont see what necessarily makes paintball violent, or rather how it could make a person violent.

and even then, its not a good idea to associate a sport with the military.

See below for why it is violent.

I never once said that playing paintball makes anyone more violent. That's nonsense anyway. Videogames, paintball, football, etc don't make people more violent, that's scapegoating for poor parenting IMO.

And for your last point? It's not a good idea, only if you make the assumption that the military is bad, which IMO, it is not. Those guys do what they do to keep you safe, so you can **** on them on an internet forum. And they do so willingly. Whatever your politics, you cannot fault the soldier in the field, those guys are doing what they are told, to the best of their ability. If you want to hate someone for a war, you hate the politicians. The soldiers should get a warm welcome and healthy slice of respect when they get back, regardless of what your politics are.

2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms at intense.
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a violent death.
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

Funny how you selectively read.

The screaming cursing, high speed, super intense version of PB you seem to prefer is very nearly by definition (your definition) violent. Things happen at a quick pace, usually with no warning, and with zero mercy. Unbridled aggression is idolized. It IS violent, whether you want to admit it or not.

A great many things in life are violent, that's how the world is. Sugar coating things and talking a big circle around them does not change the nature of the game, especially when all the gansta rat wannbes whine about people saying "GUN", and the Army sponsoring a tournament, but then wear shirts that say "We kill suckers.", or talk about how you blew a guy's head off last game. It's all BS. Just reactionary crap from kids who want to rebel against something (and if they can't find anything good, they'll make it up).

[tyrion2323]

See below for why it is violent.

I never once said that playing paintball makes anyone more violent. That's nonsense anyway. Videogames, paintball, football, etc don't make people more violent, that's scapegoating for poor parenting IMO.

Ryan, you're partly incorrect here. I understand that you probably don't either read or have access to APA documented studies, but they provide evidence for higher violence rates in teens. There is a dearth of research which links violent television, music and video games to increased violent behavioral tendencies. That being said, they're correlational so you're right that video games don't MAKE someone violent, but they most certainly do influence behavior. I agree with you about the parents, though. Too many McParents just plug their kids into the television.

And for your last point? It's not a good idea, only if you make the assumption that the military is bad, which IMO, it is not. Those guys do what they do to keep you safe, so you can **** on them on an internet forum. And they do so willingly. Whatever your politics, you cannot fault the soldier in the field, those guys are doing what they are told, to the best of their ability. If you want to hate someone for a war, you hate the politicians. The soldiers should get a warm welcome and healthy slice of respect when they get back, regardless of what your politics are.

you're not talking to me here, since I never said anything about the military...

Funny how you selectively read.

The screaming cursing, high speed, super intense version of PB you seem to prefer is very nearly by definition (your definition) violent. Things happen at a quick pace, usually with no warning, and with zero mercy. Unbridled aggression is idolized. It IS violent, whether you want to admit it or not.

You display an interesting example of selective reading yourself here. You previously made the argument that paintball itself is a violent sport. It's not. Now you're saying it's because of the arguments (etc.) which happen within and as a result of the game. But that doesn't speak to the nature of paintball, that speaks to the nature of humans. Whether people become angry when playing paintball is irrelevent, since people become angry doing anything: playing pinball, ordering food, even posting on internet forums.

Dictionaries put in those examples so that one can infer the contextual meaning of a word. Take a look again:

Great emotional force (such as violent dislike) is not a part of paintball. It occurs, certainly, just as it occurs when people drive cars, play music or preach about the Bible. That doesn't make these activities violent.

And being marked by intensity is again only a construct of those who are playing the game. Some people play the game and get extremely intense about it, while others simply play the game and let infractions slide - and there are people in between. Intensity is a human characteristic.

The only game that has been scientifically proven to be intense was CrossFire. Man, you remember that game? That was intense.

[Lohman446]

So, when someone calmly throws a punch its not violent?

[CoolHand]

The only game that has been scientifically proven to be intense was CrossFire. Man, you remember that game? That was intense.

LMAO.

You win.

[SpitFire1299]

The winning team gets drafted.

Yay!

[tyrion2323]

So, when someone calmly throws a punch its not violent?

If the intent of this calmly thrown punch is the rib your friend or give him a hard time, then according to definition, no.

If the intent is to hurt, convey ill-will or the like, then the dictionary would say that it is. Violence, at least my understanding of it, has to do with the intention or reception of certain actions. An experienced fighter can calmly throw a punch that kills someone - in which case, the pain and death would automatically qualify the action as having been violent. Similarly, an inexperienced fighter can throw a punch out of rage that completely misses his target. Still, his punch was a violent action.

Violence as the hypothetical construct that we bandy around really isn't the same as the actual definition of the word. I think we confuse 'violence' with 'aggression', which paintball would be considered. Violence doesn't necessarily refer to attacking or hurting someone, as one could cry violently without ever affecting someone else.

Assertive, bold, and energetic: an aggressive sales campaign.
4. Of or relating to an investment or approach to investing that seeks above-average returns by taking above-average risks.
5. Fast growing; tending to spread quickly and invade: an aggressive tumor.
6. Characterized by or inclined toward vigorous or intensive medical treatment: an aggressive approach to treating the infection.
7. Intense or harsh, as in color.

The reason I went to the dictionary is that there are a lot of people making statements about what things are and what things aren't. According to RedRT, Paintball isn't officially a sport. Well, according to the dictionary (and I would guess, the majority of paintball players) it turns out that he's wrong. According to Coolhand, paintball is violent. Well, I would argue that he's incorrect as well.

My posts have nothing to do with the Army or their sponsorship of big-game events and such. I honestly don't care that much about that.

[CoolHand]

Ahhh, I see.

We've descended into semantics again.

You know an argument is pointless when the only real way to "win" is to correct iffy word usage.

/You still win though.
//Don't care enough to spend anymore time.
///Sarcasm takes time too, so this is as good as it gets.

[warbeak2099]

Ryan, you're partly incorrect here. I understand that you probably don't either read or have access to APA documented studies, but they provide evidence for higher violence rates in teens. There is a dearth of research which links violent television, music and video games to increased violent behavioral tendencies. That being said, they're correlational so you're right that video games don't MAKE someone violent, but they most certainly do influence behavior. I agree with you about the parents, though. Too many McParents just plug their kids into the television.

Ah you are conviently and lazily ignoring the parts of those studies that explain how these effects are only found in children with predispositions to violence. Ie, children with personality disorders and the like. There is no significant positive correlation between video games and violence in normal children. Stop picking out the facts that support your argument. Look at the whole picture me bucko.

[tyrion2323]

Ah you are conviently and lazily ignoring the parts of those studies that explain how these effects are only found in children with predispositions to violence. Ie, children with personality disorders and the like. There is no significant positive correlation between video games and violence in normal children. Stop picking out the facts that support your argument. Look at the whole picture me bucko.

Warbeak,
I don't want to take this to the personal level like it seems you do; however, despite your assertion that I'm being lazy, I think you'll find upon further inspection that I'm not being selective at all. Additionally, any research you might do into these "predispositions" towards violence (perhaps you mean CD, ODD, ASPD, etc.) must be nurtured and cultivated by primary caregivers and social environment up to the point of diagnosis. But these studies aren't done solely on those who have predispositions. They're done through random sampling in order to maximize external validity. While it is noted that aggressive individuals react the strongest to violence in media, the effects certainly did not stop there...

Consider some examples:

Two studies examined violent video game effects on aggression-related variables. Study 1 found that real-life violent video game play was positively related to aggressive behavior and delinquency. The relation was stronger for individuals who are characteristically aggressive and for men. Academic achievement was negatively related to overall amount of time spent playing video games. In Study 2, laboratory exposure to a graphically violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior. In both studies, men had a more hostile view of the world than did women. The results from both studies are consistent with the General Affective Aggression Model, which predicts that exposure to violent video games will increase aggressive behavior in both the short term (e.g., laboratory aggression) and the long term (e.g., delinquency).

and one relating to television...

Fifty years of news coverage on the link between media violence and aggression have left the U.S. public confused. Typical news articles pit researchers and child advocates against entertainment industry representatives, frequently giving equal weight to the arguments of both sides. A comparison of news reports and scientific knowledge about media effects reveals a disturbing discontinuity. Over the past 50 years, the average news report has changed from claims of a weak link to a moderate link and then back to a weak link. However, since 1975, the scientific confidence and statistical magnitude of this link has been clearly positive and has consistently increased over time. Reasons for this discontinuity between news reports and the actual state of scientific knowledge include the vested interests of the news, a misapplied fairness doctrine in news reporting, and the failure of the research community to effectively argue the scientific case.

I'm not trying to play semantics, like CoolHand seems to think I am; instead, I'm simply checking facts. People make a lot of statements on these forums. And a lot of them are simply wrong. I'm not saying that violence is created by the media. I have never said that. What I'm saying is that current empirical studies show evidence that there is a correlation present. I say this not as a layman, but someone with a degree in Psychology, working on a Ph.D in Psychology, and trained as a therapist, as well as someone who is in daily council with several psychologists and mental health practitioners about current research and studies. There, that's my flexing of muscles, whatever it adds up to. I'm not going to argue this anymore, since it really doesn't do much. I fully encourage anyone who doubts me to go read up on the APA websites, take some classes in the field, or whatever.

Coolhand, I suppose it's helpless trying to argue this point with you. I wasn't sarcastic, nor did I personally attack you - I simply looked these things up in the dictionary. I'm confident in my statements, but if you see any glaring faults, please be sure to let me know. I'm not in this to "win" it, but I'm certainly not in it to concede to a faulty statement, either.

[Lohman446]

If the intent of this calmly thrown punch is the rib your friend or give him a hard time, then according to definition, no.

I think iffy into semantics. When I look at paintball there is zero question in my mind that it is violent. Your run to the dictionary argument seems weak at face value.

If I calmly throw a kick in a point fighting contest (or even not calmly) and it hits hard enough to bruise is it violent, even though it was not my intent?