Wait, what? Yeah, you can expect to get heckled. That doesn't mean that you want to get heckled, that you approve of being heckled, or that you enjoy being heckled. There is no such thing as consensual heckling.
By living in a free society where freedom of speech is a right, you consent to being presented with most forms of speech. The only way to not consent is to go to a place where speech is not free. ;^)
Whatever, were are getting somewhat off topic. What is bad about sadism and schadenfreude? It's enjoyment derived from the misery of others, and it leads to the person enjoying it creating more misery to enjoy that. That is inherently a bad thing. TWS, you seem to think that the problem is with people complaining about the heckling, when the heckling is in itself a bad thing. You said earlier that it is entertaining to watch a car crash. That doesn't mean that you should be attempting to cause car crashes. The problem is that the enjoyment of car crashes might lead to someone attempting to cause them.
While I like hecklers, and heckling, I do agree that continual hating of "the other" is probably not healthy. I find rabid sports fans one of the most disagreeable types of person, do everything I can to stay away from them, and avoid any interaction. I thought Scott's joke in this podcast was a good one though, and I don't see him as someone overly negative.
By living in a free society where freedom of speech is a right, you consent to being presented with most forms of speech. The only way to not consent is to go to a place where speech is not free. ;^)
How did we get to free speech? Of course there is free speech. You can say whatever you want. However, that also means that I have the right to disapprove of what you said, and demonstrate that it is in fact bad to use that free speech in that manner. Hecklers use their free speech. They're still dickheads though. Free speech can be used for good and bad. Hecklers, or people like Scott whose first thought on using a new avenue of speech is attempting to troll someone, are using it for bad.
While I like hecklers, and heckling, I do agree that continual hating of "the other" is probably not healthy. I find rabid sports fans one of the most disagreeable types of person, do everything I can to stay away from them, and avoid any interaction. I thought Scott's joke in this podcast was a good one though, and I don't see him as someone overly negative.
Following Scott's twitter and seeing his sports related tweets will probably change your mind on that.
Man, there's almost nothing more awesome than yelling an insult at a player while he/she's taking a shot, and they miss because of you. You just helped your team win by going out of your way to be mean to the other team. I see nothing wrong with that :-P
Good heckling: Insults. Your mom jokes. Distracting the other team. Making up songs about how much you hate them. Cheering when the other team does badly, etc. Bad heckling: Purposefully sitting/standing with the opposing team's fans and being an asshole. Throwing beer bottles and starting fights with the other fans, especially kids. Taking a dump in the band's seats while they are at halftime. Beating up the other team's mascot. etc.
While I like hecklers, and heckling, I do agree that continual hating of "the other" is probably not healthy. I find rabid sports fans one of the most disagreeable types of person, do everything I can to stay away from them, and avoid any interaction. I thought Scott's joke in this podcast was a good one though, and I don't see him as someone overly negative.
Following Scott's twitter and seeing his sports related tweets will probably change your mind on that.
Scott gets a pass here because he's hating on Philadelphia. It's practically a public service.
Following Scott's twitter and seeing his sports related tweets will probably change your mind on that.
You appear to think that Scott actually cares about these teams, as opposed to Scott playing the role of a fan in the drama surrounding these teams.
Good heckling: Insults. Your mom jokes. Distracting the other team. Making up songs about how much you hate them. Cheering when the other team does badly, etc.
Bad heckling: Purposefully sitting/standing with the opposing team's fans and being an asshole. Throwing beer bottles and starting fights with the other fans, especially kids. Taking a dump in the band's seats while they are at halftime. Beating up the other team's mascot. etc.
I agree except on one bolded count. At RIT, we were up by a number of goals. With 30 seconds left in the game, I appeared with a bugle behind the visitors' stands and began playing Taps. I consider this excellent heckling.
Good heckling: Insults. Your mom jokes. Distracting the other team. Making up songs about how much you hate them. Cheering when the other team does badly, etc.
Bad heckling: Purposefully sitting/standing with the opposing team's fans and being an asshole. Throwing beer bottles and starting fights with the other fans, especially kids. Taking a dump in the band's seats while they are at halftime. Beating up the other team's mascot. etc.
I agree except on one bolded count. At RIT, we were up by a number of goals. With 30 seconds left in the game, I appeared with a bugle behind the visitors' stands and began playing Taps. I consider this excellent heckling.
I agree, that is great heckling. I was mainly remembering my experience last weekend of a guy who stood in our student section the entire game just generally being annoying. It wasn't awful, just really annoying. Plus it wasn't even a good game or an opposing team that mattered, so it was more lame than anything.
I agree, that is great heckling. I was mainly remembering my experience last weekend of a guy who stood in our student section the entire game just generally being annoying. It wasn't awful, just really annoying. Plus it wasn't even a good game or an opposing team that mattered, so it was more lame than anything.
That's ok, many awesome things arouse out of it. Like the fact that everyone just stared and pointed at him when the game was all but over. No one said anything, we just stood and pointed.
I agree except on one bolded count. At RIT, we were up by a number of goals. With 30 seconds left in the game, I appeared with a bugle behind the visitors' stands and began playing Taps. I consider this excellent heckling.
The GT band sends a small contingent to roam around the stadium during the third quarter to play in the stands and rich people boxes. They often like to sneak up behind the visiting band and play our fight song. On rare occasions they even get access to below their seats and play up at them from beneath the stadium.
It's enjoyment derived from the misery of others, and it leads to the person enjoying it creating more misery to enjoy that. That is inherently a bad thing.
You keep saying "inherently bad," and that's what I'm looking at here. So you're asserting that heckling, in any context, no matter the extenuating circumstances, is just bad? Even in, say, the Trash Talk Mario Tennis example, where all players agree to a set of rules prior to the competition?
I patently disagree about sadism and schadenfreude being inherently bad. Inherently fucked up? Sure, I buy that. But "bad" is a step too far. If a consensual situation exists, then the amount of "harm" caused to the consenting parties must be negligible, or else they would not have consented. So if there's no real net harm and there is a net positive gain, how is the situation "bad?"
The only part of your statement that is inherently bad is this one:
it leads to the person enjoying it creating more misery to enjoy that
TWS, you seem to think that the problem is with people complaining about the heckling, when the heckling is in itself a bad thing.
No, I am utterly rejecting your baseless assertion that heckling is inherently bad, because there are situations in which heckling is good and adds to everyone's enjoyment of the event.
The problem is that the enjoyment of car crashes might lead to someone attempting to cause them.
Right, just like the way that I enjoy first-person shooter games makes me want to go out and shoot people.
I patently disagree about sadism and schadenfreude being inherently bad. Inherently fucked up? Sure, I buy that.
I would even question the idea of all sadism being inherently fucked up. If you and your consensual partner like it rough, that's not fucked up, just not the norm. If you like torturing small animals, that's definitely fucked up and you should probably be in an institution.
The problem is that the enjoyment of car crashes might lead to someone attempting to cause them.
Right, just like the way that I enjoy first-person shooter games makes me want to go out and shoot people.
I would even question the idea of all sadism being inherently fucked up.
When I say "fucked up," I'm using it as a shortcut for "egregiously abnormal." Unlike many people, I don't automatically equate "abnormal" with "bad." "Abnormal" is just "not normal," and most people don't like beating each other with canes. Or if they do, they're really really quiet about it.
But there's also an element of attraction to things that are decidedly fucked up - we like to watch train wrecks and freak shows. That doesn't mean we want train wrecks to happen, but we're still fascinated when they do.
I patently disagree about sadism and schadenfreude being inherently bad. Inherently fucked up? Sure, I buy that. But "bad" is a step too far. If a consensual situation exists, then the amount of "harm" caused to the consenting parties must be negligible, or else they would not have consented. So if there's no real net harm and there is a net positive gain, how is the situation "bad?"
That is if the parties are consenting. Heckling is not consenting. Take this for example. Perhaps you are a sexual sadist. You perhaps enjoy beating people with baseball bats. Perhaps you have a partner who enjoys being beat up with baseball bats. You get your thing on together. That's consenting great. Now you take up your baseball bat and go out in the street and beat someones brains out. That is not consent. That is infliction of bodily harm. Should the guy you beat down have expected to get beaten with a baseball bat because we live in a violent society? Would that be different in a more dangerous place, like for example south america or Iraq? Did he consent because of the fact that you beat him down? Does it become better if you have more perverts in tow who look at it and enjoy what they see?
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit. Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school.
No, I am utterly rejecting your baseless assertion that heckling is inherently bad, because there are situations in which heckling is good and adds to everyone's enjoyment of the event.
Everyone? Including the guy who is being heckled? Yeah, right... You are also making the fallacy of arguing for the rarest of cases. Yes, there can be situations where everybody enjoys heckling. That doesn't mean that the act of heckling itself is a good thing. Take the baseball bat thing above. The partner and you both enjoy your respective roles of beating and being beaten up. That doesn't mean that beating people with baseball bats isn't something bad, detrimental, or harmful. In fact, it being harmful is kind of the point. Harmful is essentially synonymous with bad.
Right, just like the way that I enjoy first-person shooter games makes me want to go out and shoot people.
No, it makes you want to play more first person shooters, or, perhaps, MAKE a first person shooter. If you're going to make a slippery slope argument, how about you not bgreak it in the same sentence?
No, I made an equivocation, and you made a slippery slope argument:
The problem is that the enjoyment of car crashes might lead to someone attempting to cause them.
Or in other words: "Activity X is bad because it could lead to Activity Y, and Activity Y is really really bad!" That's exemplary of the slippery slope fallacy.
Viewing a car crash and creating a car crash for the purposes of viewing are radically different motivations. If I watch videos of people shooting guns at people, does that make me want to shoot guns at people in real life? Does that make me want to cause more gun violence? No! That's ludicrous. Watching a car crash from the stands or on TV is effectively a form of voyeurism, made possible by the safe distance between the viewer and the event. Sometimes voyeurism leads to attempts at the thing, but that is not necessarily the case. We engage in voyeurism to feel a particular way. Perhaps we stare at car crashes so that we are scared away from doing dangerous things with cars. Some people certainly react that way.
If you actually enjoy being in a car crash, I could accept your premise. But you're saying any enjoyment of car crashes can lead to people wanting more of them, and that's every bit as ridiculous as my assertion.
Heckling is not consenting.
It can be, and it is with regard to professional sporting events. Go read the posts where I argue for heckling in sports being consensual. You didn't actually provide a counter-argument; you simply said "No it's not."
"Consent" does not require that you want or even enjoy the activity to which you are consenting. It means that you agree to participate. In agreeing to participate, it means that any problems you have with the activity are not sufficient for you to not engage. Ergo, there's no problem. If you had a problem sufficient to stop you from participating, you wouldn't have consented.
Your problem is that you're conflating "consenting" to something with "actively wanting" that something. They are different.
That doesn't mean that beating people with baseball bats isn't something bad, detrimental, or harmful.
You have yet to demonstrate how it is bad, though, in a consensual situation.
Imagine if three people are together. A and B want to beat everyone with bats. C is informed and is capable of consenting or not. C says, "Well, I don't particularly like baseball bats, but I'll accept it for the sake of this event." That's consent, and that makes everything just fine.
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit. Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school.
These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit. Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school.
These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit. Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school.
These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
Oh right, that. Looks like we're headed for the same thing here.
So then I'm done. Staggering false equivocation = no useful discussion.
And Rym's efforts as bugle boy were absolutely epic. I remember this one time that he played the bugle call for a charge, and the Tigers immediately scored a goal. The crowd went fucking nuts.
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit. Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school.
These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
For reals.
We are not talking about rape or beating people with baseball bats here. We are talking about heckling during sporting events. I'm sure everyone agrees here that as soon as heckling turns into unwanted physical violence, it is NOT okay.
I personally wouldn't participate in heckling if I was around young kids or grannies, for example, but others aren't so careful. I admit that it is unfortunate that some people may be genuinely offended by severe heckling, but comparing that to rape and baseball bat beatings is quite ridiculous.
No, I made an equivocation, and you made a slippery slope argument:
The problem is that the enjoyment of car crashes might lead to someone attempting to cause them.
Or in other words: "Activity X is bad because it could lead to Activity Y, and Activity Y is really really bad!" That's exemplary of the slippery slope fallacy.
Viewing a car crash and creating a car crash for the purposes of viewing are radically different motivations. If I watch videos of people shooting guns at people, does that make me want to shoot guns at people in real life? Does that make me want to cause more gun violence? No! That's ludicrous. Watching a car crash from the stands or on TV is effectively a form of voyeurism, made possible by the safe distance between the viewer and the event. Sometimes voyeurism leads to attempts at the thing, but that is not necessarily the case. We engage in voyeurism to feel a particular way. Perhaps we stare at car crashes so that we are scared away from doing dangerous things with cars. Some people certainly react that way.
If you actually enjoy being in a car crash, I could accept your premise. But you're saying any enjoyment of car crashes can lead to people wanting more of them, and that's every bit as ridiculous as my assertion.No, I made an induction. Activity Y causes Activity X to occur. Activity X is desirable, thus it is also desirable to do Activity Y. However, Activity Y is bad. Activity X is therefore also bad. And despite Activity X being desired by some, it should not be because it is bad.
I also didn't say that every single person is going to start engaging in causing car crashes, but some might. And with more people enjoying them, the reason to cause car crashes in fact increases.
Your slippery slope argument breaks down because there is an inherent disconnect between between shooting fictional people in a video game, and shooting actual people in real life. It's also the case that one of them causes real, actual harm. The other does not.
It can be, and it is with regard to professional sporting events. Go read the posts where I argue for heckling in sports being consensual. You didn't actually provide a counter-argument; you simply said "No it's not."
"Consent" does not require that you want or even enjoy the activity to which you are consenting. It means that you agree to participate. In agreeing to participate, it means that any problems you have with the activity are not sufficient for you to not engage. Ergo, there's no problem. If you had a problem sufficient to stop you from participating, you wouldn't have consented.
Your problem is that you're conflating "consenting" to something with "actively wanting" that something. They are different.
Yes, consent means to agree to participate in. You are however going by implied consent, i.e. someone who plays professional sports is implicitly consenting to being heckled, rather than their actual stated consent. And that his horseshit. Being heckled is not included in the job description of a professional athlete. All that's in there is playing the sport. Heckling is a side effect from an audience being present, but it isn't actual part of the sport. You could remove the audience and the sport would still be there and the athlete would still be playing it. In fact, there have been many cases in which hecklers, due to the severity or obscenity of their heckling, have been removed from the events, including sporting events, where they were at. How can that be if being heckled is implicitly consented to by being a public performer?
Your argument also sounds very similar to saying a woman dressing in skimpy outfits has implicitly consented to being raped (which btw is an actual argument that some people use, particularly in islamic countries).
You have yet to demonstrate how it is bad, though, in a consensual situation.
Imagine if three people are together. A and B want to beat everyone with bats. C is informed and is capable of consenting or not. C says, "Well, I don't particularly like baseball bats, but I'll accept it for the sake of this event." That's consent, and that makes everything just fine.
Indeed, except that heckling isn't consenting. Your scenario is still harmful (and thus bad) because it inflicts bodily damage. Which is why I would strongly advice against engaging in it, though I wouldn't say that they must be stopped at all cost.
These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
It must be great when you can just assert that the argument of your opponent is wrong, rather than attempt to show that it is wrong...
------------------------------------------------
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit. Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school.
These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
For reals.
We are not talking about rape or beating people with baseball bats here. We are talking about heckling during sporting events. I'm sure everyone agrees here that as soon as heckling turns into unwanted physical violence, it is NOT okay.
I personally wouldn't participate in heckling if I was around young kids or grannies, for example, but others aren't so careful. I admit that it is unfortunate that some people may be genuinely offended by severe heckling, but comparing that to rape and baseball bat beatings is quite ridiculous.
Sorry, but it is their arguments with which they are trying to justify the notion of heckling not being inherently a bad thing. If those identical argument can be used to defend other, far worse things, these arguments are bad and do not help their case. All I'm showing is that their arguments can in fact be used to defend far more atrocious activities.
No, I made an induction. Activity Y causes Activity X to occur. Activity X is desirable, thus it is also desirable to do Activity Y. However, Activity Y is bad. Activity X is therefore also bad. And despite Activity X being desired by some, it should not be because it is bad.
The hell does this have to do with heckling? You're implying so much here it's not even funny.
All I'm showing is that their arguments can in fact be used to defend far more atrocious activities.
So what? How does that take away someone's credibility in the slightest? You're suggesting that by substituting out words with things like "rape" and "beatings" and somehow trying to convince us that they're equivalent (which, for fuck's sake, they're not), that makes the original argument moot? God damn, it's like I'm watching a really bad GOP debate here.
So what? How does that take away someone's credibility in the slightest? You're suggesting that by substituting out words with things like "rape" and "beatings" and somehow trying to convince us that they're equivalent (which, for fuck's sake, they're not), that makes the original argument moot? God damn, it's like I'm watching a really bad GOP debate here.
I'm not saying that they are equivalent. Far from it. However, one argument is used to defend one Activity A and declare that Activity A is not "bad", and the same argument can also be applied to Activity B also resulting in defending Activity B and declaring that Activity B is not "bad", and Activity B is actually universally agreed upon to be in fact "bad", the argument is fallacious/bullshit. That is simple logic.
If the guys here would say "yes, it's a bad activity, but it's still entertaining and it doesn't cause enough harm for me to stop or that warrants to keep other people from engaging" then okay, have it your way. Be a dick, I can disapprove of it but I can't exactly stop you from doing it. However, instead they opt to attempt to declare the activity to be not bad at all and engage in bad, stupid, dumb reasoning. It's not that they have come from actual logic and deduced whether or not the activity in question is bad or not, but they started with the assumption that it can't be bad to begin with.
"I like to eat chezburgers because they are tasty."
"I like to eat babies because they are tasty."
See how one of these is "good" and one is "bad"? Because the subject matter changed? Just because the logic for the first one is okay, doesn't mean it applies to the second one.
Be a dick
That's the whole point! :P
Ok I'll stop contributing now, I'm a little bored today e_e
If you really want to extend it, eating is a good thing. It keeps the body intact. However, collecting what you eat is generally a bad thing. Whether you are eating meat or are a vegetarian or a vegan, you are still consuming (and thus destroying) other lifeforms in order to feed yourself. The difference here is the same as I described in the statement you quoted. Eating plant or non-human animal matter doesn't cause enough harm and provides enough benefit over the alternatives that I do not see the necessity to stop myself or other people from doing that. Cannibalism on the other hand does cause sufficient harm.
Comments
Good heckling: Insults. Your mom jokes. Distracting the other team. Making up songs about how much you hate them. Cheering when the other team does badly, etc.
Bad heckling: Purposefully sitting/standing with the opposing team's fans and being an asshole. Throwing beer bottles and starting fights with the other fans, especially kids. Taking a dump in the band's seats while they are at halftime. Beating up the other team's mascot. etc.
Good times.
I patently disagree about sadism and schadenfreude being inherently bad. Inherently fucked up? Sure, I buy that. But "bad" is a step too far. If a consensual situation exists, then the amount of "harm" caused to the consenting parties must be negligible, or else they would not have consented. So if there's no real net harm and there is a net positive gain, how is the situation "bad?"
The only part of your statement that is inherently bad is this one: No, I am utterly rejecting your baseless assertion that heckling is inherently bad, because there are situations in which heckling is good and adds to everyone's enjoyment of the event. Right, just like the way that I enjoy first-person shooter games makes me want to go out and shoot people.
But there's also an element of attraction to things that are decidedly fucked up - we like to watch train wrecks and freak shows. That doesn't mean we want train wrecks to happen, but we're still fascinated when they do.
You can also make similar arguments for gang rape: 10 people enjoy themselves while one woman suffers, and if she didn't want to get raped she shouldn't have worn that skimpy outfit.
Or for school bullying: 10 kids stand around and laugh, and if the kid didn't want to get bullied he shouldn't be such a dork or not come to school. Everyone? Including the guy who is being heckled? Yeah, right...
You are also making the fallacy of arguing for the rarest of cases. Yes, there can be situations where everybody enjoys heckling. That doesn't mean that the act of heckling itself is a good thing. Take the baseball bat thing above. The partner and you both enjoy your respective roles of beating and being beaten up. That doesn't mean that beating people with baseball bats isn't something bad, detrimental, or harmful. In fact, it being harmful is kind of the point. Harmful is essentially synonymous with bad. No, it makes you want to play more first person shooters, or, perhaps, MAKE a first person shooter. If you're going to make a slippery slope argument, how about you not bgreak it in the same sentence?
Viewing a car crash and creating a car crash for the purposes of viewing are radically different motivations. If I watch videos of people shooting guns at people, does that make me want to shoot guns at people in real life? Does that make me want to cause more gun violence? No! That's ludicrous. Watching a car crash from the stands or on TV is effectively a form of voyeurism, made possible by the safe distance between the viewer and the event. Sometimes voyeurism leads to attempts at the thing, but that is not necessarily the case. We engage in voyeurism to feel a particular way. Perhaps we stare at car crashes so that we are scared away from doing dangerous things with cars. Some people certainly react that way.
If you actually enjoy being in a car crash, I could accept your premise. But you're saying any enjoyment of car crashes can lead to people wanting more of them, and that's every bit as ridiculous as my assertion. It can be, and it is with regard to professional sporting events. Go read the posts where I argue for heckling in sports being consensual. You didn't actually provide a counter-argument; you simply said "No it's not."
"Consent" does not require that you want or even enjoy the activity to which you are consenting. It means that you agree to participate. In agreeing to participate, it means that any problems you have with the activity are not sufficient for you to not engage. Ergo, there's no problem. If you had a problem sufficient to stop you from participating, you wouldn't have consented.
Your problem is that you're conflating "consenting" to something with "actively wanting" that something. They are different. You have yet to demonstrate how it is bad, though, in a consensual situation.
Imagine if three people are together. A and B want to beat everyone with bats. C is informed and is capable of consenting or not. C says, "Well, I don't particularly like baseball bats, but I'll accept it for the sake of this event." That's consent, and that makes everything just fine. These are totally idiotic arguments. Your ability to engage in false equivocation is literally staggering.
So then I'm done. Staggering false equivocation = no useful discussion.
And Rym's efforts as bugle boy were absolutely epic. I remember this one time that he played the bugle call for a charge, and the Tigers immediately scored a goal. The crowd went fucking nuts.
We are not talking about rape or beating people with baseball bats here. We are talking about heckling during sporting events. I'm sure everyone agrees here that as soon as heckling turns into unwanted physical violence, it is NOT okay.
I personally wouldn't participate in heckling if I was around young kids or grannies, for example, but others aren't so careful. I admit that it is unfortunate that some people may be genuinely offended by severe heckling, but comparing that to rape and baseball bat beatings is quite ridiculous.
Viewing a car crash and creating a car crash for the purposes of viewing are radically different motivations. If I watch videos of people shooting guns at people, does that make me want to shoot guns at people in real life? Does that make me want to cause more gun violence? No! That's ludicrous. Watching a car crash from the stands or on TV is effectively a form of voyeurism, made possible by the safe distance between the viewer and the event. Sometimes voyeurism leads to attempts at the thing, but that is not necessarily the case. We engage in voyeurism to feel a particular way. Perhaps we stare at car crashes so that we are scared away from doing dangerous things with cars. Some people certainly react that way.
If you actually enjoy being in a car crash, I could accept your premise. But you're saying any enjoyment of car crashes can lead to people wanting more of them, and that's every bit as ridiculous as my assertion.No, I made an induction. Activity Y causes Activity X to occur. Activity X is desirable, thus it is also desirable to do Activity Y. However, Activity Y is bad. Activity X is therefore also bad. And despite Activity X being desired by some, it should not be because it is bad.
I also didn't say that every single person is going to start engaging in causing car crashes, but some might. And with more people enjoying them, the reason to cause car crashes in fact increases.
Your slippery slope argument breaks down because there is an inherent disconnect between between shooting fictional people in a video game, and shooting actual people in real life. It's also the case that one of them causes real, actual harm. The other does not.
Yes, consent means to agree to participate in. You are however going by implied consent, i.e. someone who plays professional sports is implicitly consenting to being heckled, rather than their actual stated consent. And that his horseshit. Being heckled is not included in the job description of a professional athlete. All that's in there is playing the sport. Heckling is a side effect from an audience being present, but it isn't actual part of the sport. You could remove the audience and the sport would still be there and the athlete would still be playing it. In fact, there have been many cases in which hecklers, due to the severity or obscenity of their heckling, have been removed from the events, including sporting events, where they were at. How can that be if being heckled is implicitly consented to by being a public performer?
Your argument also sounds very similar to saying a woman dressing in skimpy outfits has implicitly consented to being raped (which btw is an actual argument that some people use, particularly in islamic countries). Indeed, except that heckling isn't consenting. Your scenario is still harmful (and thus bad) because it inflicts bodily damage. Which is why I would strongly advice against engaging in it, though I wouldn't say that they must be stopped at all cost. It must be great when you can just assert that the argument of your opponent is wrong, rather than attempt to show that it is wrong...
------------------------------------------------ Sorry, but it is their arguments with which they are trying to justify the notion of heckling not being inherently a bad thing. If those identical argument can be used to defend other, far worse things, these arguments are bad and do not help their case. All I'm showing is that their arguments can in fact be used to defend far more atrocious activities.
If the guys here would say "yes, it's a bad activity, but it's still entertaining and it doesn't cause enough harm for me to stop or that warrants to keep other people from engaging" then okay, have it your way. Be a dick, I can disapprove of it but I can't exactly stop you from doing it. However, instead they opt to attempt to declare the activity to be not bad at all and engage in bad, stupid, dumb reasoning. It's not that they have come from actual logic and deduced whether or not the activity in question is bad or not, but they started with the assumption that it can't be bad to begin with.
"I like to eat babies because they are tasty."
See how one of these is "good" and one is "bad"? Because the subject matter changed?
Just because the logic for the first one is okay, doesn't mean it applies to the second one. That's the whole point! :P
Ok I'll stop contributing now, I'm a little bored today e_e
...whoa...