Tarantino

yunki – Member
uncomfortable viewing, I don’t think any less of either of them though.. I think igrf has come out of this worst IMO

Name’s not Richard by any chance then yunki?

I only found this place after breaking a long habit of watching gay porn so thought I’d try the real thing.

He’s been on a steady downwards trajectory since Reservoir Dogs.

i’ve also watched a lot of people being killed in films and managed to go 28 years without ever feeling the need to even punch somebody.

Based on a sample of one person (you) who turned out ok after watching violent and disturbing films it should be ok for everyone?

Based on a sample of one person (you) who turned out ok after watching violent and disturbing films it should be ok for everyone?

It is relevant though.

the sample size is clearly more than one* he simply gave some personal experiene in what was a very thoughtful and intelligent piece.

* if it was just him who managed this leaving the cinema would be amongst the most dangerous things you could ever do and billions of folk would be out there being randomly violent

No, he’s using personal experience to extrapolate to a general rule or provide support for applying a general rule. Not a valid argument form.

Edit: I’m not saying he’s wrong about film violence just that personal experience is a weak or even invalid argument.

I watched 300 and wanted to shout at people and jump around whilst only dressed in my Y fronts and shag fit ginger birds with nipples like bullets.

see further proof that your underlying personality remains unaffected 😉

I’m not saying he’s wrong about film violence just that personal experience is a weak or even invalid argument.

I get your point yet oddly if i report it after asking him [ and checking] it is then science and a report but it is still basically personal experience.

It would only become ‘science’ if you had a statistically significant sample size and were able to normalise the data for any influencing factors such as age.

Not if you do a SSED [single subject experimental design] 😉

I am debating within a forum not a science conference but i can do that if you want.

I am sure you get the point I was making as I get yours.

PS Phil it was such a good post I shall break the habit of a lifetime

Not if you do a SSED [single subject experimental design]

That would give you an insight into the effect of violent film on an individual not a population which seemed to be the original question.

But as you say, I get your point.

Childish trolling by Guru-Murthy – taking a pious and wearisome tack on whether there was a correlation between violence depicted in his films and real life. Tarantino has to answer this mind-numbingly puerile question and rack over old ground with each new release – something he’s done for the last 21 years since Reservoir Dogs.

Edit: I’m not saying he’s wrong about film violence just that personal experience is a weak or even invalid argument.

Not always and not in this case I don’t believe. The fundamental argument is that film violence is linked to actual violence. That people imitate what they see on screen. The argument is flawed because if that were true then we would all be acting out violence after watching violent films. Those that supposedly do were already predisposed to act in that way. The fact that someone imitated something they saw in a film is not an indicator that films are a cause of violence, just that people that are predisposed to violence or aggressive behaviour can use films to ignite their desire to act violently.

The argument is flawed because if that were true then we would all be acting out violence after watching violent films.

This is a different argument from the one offered in the other post.

Your argument is also flawed because the fact that the majority are not affected does not mean everyone is unaffected.

The problem with this issue is that causality is very difficult to determine.

Boring, the guy is on drugs and you holy’s can’t get that. 😆

Childish trolling by Guru-Murthy – taking a pious and wearisome tack on whether there was a correlation between violence depicted in his films and real life. Tarantino has to answer this mind-numbingly puerile question and rack over old ground with each new release – something he’s done for the last 21 years since Reservoir Dogs.

You watched the whole interview, didn’t you? 😉
Krishnan was all over Twitter asking for questions to ask before he faced Tarantino. That doesn’t make good background for a serious news programme.

Its Friday night. Tarrantino is probably getting off his face. So why dont we?

I only found this place after breaking a long habit of watching gay porn so thought I’d try the real thing.

I only found this place after breaking a long habit of watching gay porn so thought I’d try the real thing.

Hang on. There is gay porn here? Is this for subscribers only?

Your argument is also flawed because the fact that the majority are not affected does not mean everyone is unaffected.

Absolutely. On that point I agree completely. Few would argue that those who are predisposed to violence or aggression combined with a level of psychological susceptibility would be potentially influenced by violent films or video games. In fact, going back to my psychology degree (some years ago) I can’t remember finding any study which dared to argue otherwise. The point is that on that basis, violent films and video games have very little to answer for and so many (not you of course) are quick to attribute a huge amount of blame onto the movie and video game (and hip-hop) industries for gun crime/violence/murder etc.

And likewise I agree that causality is incredibly difficult to determine.