Will Oculus Rift ruin your life? (discussion between God Ginrai and WizardStan)


God Ginrai

Godmaster
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
5,466
Website
Visit site
Don't try to write this off.
I'm not, I just don't see why it should be a concern. What do you care how people prefer to interact? If two people are more comfortable chatting in their respective lounges rather than going to a bar who are you to judge?
Sure, and what do I care about a friend ruining his life with heroin or risking his life by driving home while slammed? You're totally right, we should just let others be free to damn themselves, and we should wholly support technology that makes it easier to do so.

-God Ginrai
 
Ok, you've completely gone over the deep end. I'm refusing to carry on this conversation so long as you resort to such unwarranted hyperbole.
 
Ok, you've completely gone over the deep end. I'm refusing to carry on this conversation so long as you resort to such unwarranted hyperbole.
Bull fucking shit this is unwarranted. You just told me that you didn't see why my friend almost ruining his life due to a WoW addiction should be a concern. That warrants an ass-kicking, IMHO.

-God Ginrai
 
Your argument is a strawman.
No it isn't. I was trying to get you to understand the problems that this kind of technology could bring with it. You asked "would that be so bad?", and I gave you a reason why. Accusing me of a strawman fallacy would suggest that I ignored your points. Contrary to that, I actually acknowledged them and said I was not advocating against the technology. I only asked you to bear in mind that it brought risks as well.

EDIT:

@Natsu: I never claimed that people necessarily would either. I said that this technology would increase the number of people who are likely to fall into the same pattern of behavior. It's the same idea as "if you build it, they will come". If you make something easy enough, you invite more people to do it, thus increasing the number of people who can succumb to its vices.

-God Ginrai
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And you are not supporting your claims with facts. If you truly want to accuse me of using a strawman argument, then prove it. Baseless accusations are among the lowest forms of cowardice.
Ok, if that's what it'll take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Original premise:

I wonder " Virtualbook" you connect via facebook and can more directly interact with the other person. Simulated touch, sounds, vibrations etc.

A sort of interactive skype call.

A horrid idea I would say, if it happens, as real interaction face to face is vastly better.
Paraphrasing, VR interaction is necessarily worse than face to face, and that people having "interactive skype calls" is a horrid idea.
Counter point:

Again, the same thing has been said pretty much every time new communications technology comes along
Saying it again does not necessarily make it any more true this time then it was in the past.
Counter claim:

But supposing it's true, suppose large portions of the population take to realistic online interaction. Would that really be so bad? Get a hug from your girl friend who is visiting her parents over seas; live meeting with investors from a foreign country where you can draw on a virtual white board and hand out digital samples of your product; play board games in your friends basement even though you're scattered, or maybe you're just sick.
Paraphrased, more realistic virtual reality actually INCREASES the amount of social interaction a person or group can engage in. Several examples where physical interaction would be impossible are provided.
Your counter argument to my counter claim:

Which would you prefer? A hug from your girlfriend in person, or one in VR?
My counter counter:

Some people will prefer in person, some will prefer VR.
Pointing out that my personal preference is irrelevant, attempting to guide back to the claim that there are situations where physical interaction is impossible and therefore virtual interaction is good.
At which point you attempted to counter with

Sure, and what do I care about a friend ruining his life with heroin or risking his life by driving home while slammed?
which is hyperbole: an extreme example, an exaggeration of the situation in an attempt to gain emotional support. Again, I could use the example of people who have lost themselves in a book and missed important appointments, or just not slept when they had important things to do the next day. I could point to the people who read while driving. I could come up with all kinds of wild scenarios where people die because of books. But I won't, because just like your anecdote they are irrelevant.
Finally we get to where you said

You just told me that you didn't see why my friend almost ruining his life due to a WoW addiction should be a concern.
Which is absolutely not what I told you. If you'll notice I said it shouldn't be your concern if people prefer to interact over VR than in real life before you mentioned your friend having a WoW addiction at all. I still say it shouldn't be your concern if people prefer to interact over VR than in real life: the act of interaction, no matter the medium, is not in and of itself damaging.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position
I said that increasing virtual interactions is not necessarily a bad thing, that there are many things that cannot be done through traditional physical interaction, and that sometimes virtual interaction can be more comfortable. I then went on to say that it shouldn't be our place to judge if people prefer virtual interaction over physical; the unspoken implication is that the interactions themselves are not necessarily damaging.
A proper counter argument to what I said would demonstrate that someone who likes engaging in virtual interactions is necessarily damaging (and if you can come up with such an argument I'm sure I could use it to prove that video games are necessarily damaging as well, so tread carefully)

Instead you brought up an anecdote about your friend who has become addicted to WoW, as if I were saying that it is impossible for people to have problems. That is a straw man.
 
Counter claim:

But supposing it's true, suppose large portions of the population take to realistic online interaction. Would that really be so bad? Get a hug from your girl friend who is visiting her parents over seas; live meeting with investors from a foreign country where you can draw on a virtual white board and hand out digital samples of your product; play board games in your friends basement even though you're scattered, or maybe you're just sick.
Paraphrased, more realistic virtual reality actually INCREASES the amount of social interaction a person or group can engage in. Several examples where physical interaction would be impossible are provided.
Your counter argument to my counter claim:

Which would you prefer? A hug from your girlfriend in person, or one in VR?
I see you have a penchant for rewriting history. Good thing you can't edit my posts.

My counter argument to your counter claim was this:

But supposing it's true, suppose large portions of the population take to realistic online interaction. Would that really be so bad? Get a hug from your girl friend who is visiting her parents over seas; live meeting with investors from a foreign country where you can draw on a virtual white board and hand out digital samples of your product; play board games in your friends basement even though you're scattered, or maybe you're just sick.
I'm not saying it would not be useful, or even advocating against it. But you have to admit that this increases the risk of more people becoming like those who get hopelessly addicted to WoW or Second Life. Don't try to write this off. I know someone who had to undergo therapy for his WoW addiction, and he even had a relapse not so many years back. These kind of people do exist, and the ease of technology increases the amount of people who are likely to fall into this pattern of behavior.
My question about which you would prefer was directed towards a question you had asked:

Who decided that face-to-face interaction was the epitome of social interaction?
Honestly, that seems to me like common sense. There are a lot of benefits of online interactions, sure. But let me ask this:

Which would you prefer? A hug from your girlfriend in person, or one in VR?

-God Ginrai
Moving on, you responded to my claim about not writing off people getting addicted with (bold for emphasis):

Don't try to write this off.
I'm not, I just don't see why it should be a concern. What do you care how people prefer to interact? If two people are more comfortable chatting in their respective lounges rather than going to a bar who are you to judge?
to which I responded with:

Sure, and what do I care about a friend ruining his life with heroin or risking his life by driving home while slammed?
Because you were obviously making light of people who have serious addictions.

Finally we get to where you said

You just told me that you didn't see why my friend almost ruining his life due to a WoW addiction should be a concern.
Which is absolutely not what I told you. If you'll notice I said it shouldn't be your concern if people prefer to interact over VR than in real life before you mentioned your friend having a WoW addiction at all. I still say it shouldn't be your concern if people prefer to interact over VR than in real life: the act of interaction, no matter the medium, is not in and of itself damaging.
Go back and read what you said. I had already mentioned my friend having to go through therapy before I even asked you the hug question. You are attempting to change what has happened, and I am not letting this fly.

A proper counter argument to what I said would demonstrate that someone who likes engaging in virtual interactions is necessarily damaging (and if you can come up with such an argument I'm sure I could use it to prove that video games are necessarily damaging as well, so tread carefully)

Instead you brought up an anecdote about your friend who has become addicted to WoW, as if I were saying that it is impossible for people to have problems. That is a straw man.
Video games are damaging. So are computers, books, and just about anything when used in excess. My point was not whether something was damaging or not, but that the number of people at risk of such abuse would be likely to increase due to the ease of VR and semi-lifelike nature.

Now I would appreciate it if you would actually read the posts before stringing your own thread of posts together that does not represent the correct argument that took place between us. It is quite obvious what each of us responded to with each of our comments, especially since we both break up quotes to address different points separately. And it is quite obvious from your post that you are misappropriating my responses to the wrong comments from your posts.

-God Ginrai
 
I had already mentioned my friend having to go through therapy before I even asked you the hug question.
You're right, I had overlooked that part. I'm sorry.
I still hold to my original premise though, nothing you've mentioned has changed that.

I see you have a penchant for rewriting history. Good thing you can't edit my posts.
But this is WAY out of line. Making mistakes is not by any stretch the same as wilfully manipulating history. I have made it quite clear on several occasions my stance on censorship and even if you haven't been around for any of those the automatic response should not be character assassination.Never blame on malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
 
I still hold to my original premise though, nothing you've mentioned has changed that.
Which premise? The one about people having unfounded fears about new technology?

I see you have a penchant for rewriting history. Good thing you can't edit my posts.
But this is WAY out of line. Making mistakes is not by any stretch the same as wilfully manipulating history. I have made it quite clear on several occasions my stance on censorship and even if you haven't been around for any of those the automatic response should not be character assassination.Never blame on malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
I was giving you the credit you deserve. I didn't think you had been mistaken. You often tend to follow arguments very well, so I had a hard time believing you screwed up here. Especially after having gone back to quote posts to word that long post.

If you claim I'm wrong, I'll apologize for my accusation. However, with the confidence imbued in your long post, I had assumed that you surely would have noticed the disconnect in the discussion.

-God Ginrai
 
Which premise? The one about people having unfounded fears about new technology?
At the risk of being misunderstood, yes.The idea that some people will prefer virtual interaction vs real world interaction for a multitude of reasons, in the same way that some people prefer using short txts instead of email, or email vs calling, or calling vs writing a letter, or writing a letter vs visiting more often, that this is a "horrid" thing that is necessarily damaging to a person and needs to be worried about; that is what I am against.

Yes, fine, I can temper that with an "individuals may become addicted, just as they can get addicted to anything else, from books to meth to video games" and then wrap it around with "but that's something to be worried about with the individual, not the technology: we need friends worrying about friends trying to escape, not about the specific medium they are using to escape".

Your friend got addicted to WoW, but would you argue that (in general) someone who prefers playing video games is "horrid" and it would be better if they were restricted so more people had to read books?

Especially after having gone back to quote posts to word that long post.
The thing that screwed me up is that most of what you said I agreed with and therefore dismissed as not being an argument against what I was trying to say, literally removed it from my mind. This happens a lot in political debates, making statements that you agree with and trying to put them up as direct arguments against something you don't: "the orphanage needs to go. We need to balance the budget!" or something like that. The easiest way to break through the bullshit is to just ignore it; point to just the counter argument made, and then refute that, reasserting the original premise.
 
Call me again for this debate when we won't be able to tell the difference between VR and real life.

For now, VR won't cause more trouble than WoW/Facebook or computers in general already do, which is more or less as much as TV did.

The problem of someone getting a VR addiction is the same as the problem of someone getting a drug addiction: the fact that he's turning to it to escape his life, not the fact that the drug exists.
 
As long as we're not where Ready Player One started off i.e. haptic suits, nervous system integration, I just see this as a screen for a 3d webcam. This will become a huge thing in live porn if anywhere near affordable. Dangerous? What elPoco said.
 
When I see how Oculus Rift is immersive compared to a normal screen and when I think about how some people are absorbed by a normal screen, I conclude that some people will definitively abandon real life for imagination.

I think we already live in VR without knowing it and technology will make us live deeper and deeper in VR till we finish like chicken battery.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And my point is not that people won't become addicted to it nor that we shouldn't be aware of the possibility, my point is that someone who uses the technology, perhaps almost exclusively even, is not something that is necessarily "horrid" or a bad thing. It's a different method of interaction, just because isn't the way you like to talk to people doesn't mean someone else is suffering because of it.
Well, not completely. Technically, the more you partake in virtualized interactions, the worse it is for your body. It's not healthy to just lay around all the time, and if you use this technology almost exclusively, then that is what will happen.

Also, such seclusion often leads to many other problems. This has especially started to show up in Japan. Ever heard of the term hikikomori?
You're still not saying anything that actually suggests you've fully understood what I'm talking about. I've probably mucked it up again. I'm too tired to try a different way of saying it, sorry.
 
mu4atebe.jpg
 
Back
Top