Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Oculus Rift is going to destroy families and relationships

135

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited May 2016

    You don't need OR to tune people out of your life.  If it isn't OR, it would be something else.  Back in the day, when there wasn't a TV, or a computer, or some other gadget, it was simply a newspaper or a magazine. Dad would sit in his chair with his newspaper, or Mom would sit on the couch with her magazine, and they would both be dead to the world around them.  

    Blaming TV, computers, or what have you, because your partner isn't giving you the attention you desire is not the fault of the TV, computer, or what have you.  The fault lies in you.  If not because you're not interesting enough to keep his/her respect and attention, but because you picked that loser, or would allow that loser, to put that TV, computer, or what have you, ahead of you, your relationship, and the family, in the first place.
    agree with most of that.

    Basically its a competition for attention. If one is selecting one option over you its because to them they find the other option more compelling. and to put your head in the sand and say its the techs fault and not because it actually IS more compelling is living in denial and the problem is you, not the person who is involved in the tech media

    or to put it another way 'sorry hunny I am not trying to be selfish on purpose but right now this technology is more interesting then you are and that is a fact'

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,078

    You don't need OR to tune people out of your life.  If it isn't OR, it would be something else.  Back in the day, when there wasn't a TV, or a computer, or some other gadget, it was simply a newspaper or a magazine. Dad would sit in his chair with his newspaper, or Mom would sit on the couch with her magazine, and they would both be dead to the world around them.  

    Blaming TV, computers, or what have you, because your partner isn't giving you the attention you desire is not the fault of the TV, computer, or what have you.  The fault lies in you.  If not because you're not interesting enough to keep his/her respect and attention, but because you picked that loser, or would allow that loser, to put that TV, computer, or what have you, ahead of you, your relationship, and the family, in the first place.
    Uhh... no.  Not unless I'm reading this wrong.  Nope.  The fault is always with the parent / person of authority, never with the child.  If dad is spending too much time buried in a newspaper, that's on dad, not because "you're not interesting enough".

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited May 2016

    You don't need OR to tune people out of your life.  If it isn't OR, it would be something else.  Back in the day, when there wasn't a TV, or a computer, or some other gadget, it was simply a newspaper or a magazine. Dad would sit in his chair with his newspaper, or Mom would sit on the couch with her magazine, and they would both be dead to the world around them.  

    Blaming TV, computers, or what have you, because your partner isn't giving you the attention you desire is not the fault of the TV, computer, or what have you.  The fault lies in you.  If not because you're not interesting enough to keep his/her respect and attention, but because you picked that loser, or would allow that loser, to put that TV, computer, or what have you, ahead of you, your relationship, and the family, in the first place.
    Uhh... no.  Not unless I'm reading this wrong.  Nope.  The fault is always with the parent / person of authority, never with the child.  If dad is spending too much time buried in a newspaper, that's on dad, not because "you're not interesting enough".
    two different things.

    1. what is ones responsibility
    2. what is more compelling

    and...I dont think the century old assumptions about child raising is really even needed half the time. 


    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Member EpicPosts: 2,327
    edited May 2016

    You don't need OR to tune people out of your life.  If it isn't OR, it would be something else.  Back in the day, when there wasn't a TV, or a computer, or some other gadget, it was simply a newspaper or a magazine. Dad would sit in his chair with his newspaper, or Mom would sit on the couch with her magazine, and they would both be dead to the world around them.  

    Blaming TV, computers, or what have you, because your partner isn't giving you the attention you desire is not the fault of the TV, computer, or what have you.  The fault lies in you.  If not because you're not interesting enough to keep his/her respect and attention, but because you picked that loser, or would allow that loser, to put that TV, computer, or what have you, ahead of you, your relationship, and the family, in the first place.
    Uhh... no.  Not unless I'm reading this wrong.  Nope.  The fault is always with the parent / person of authority, never with the child.  If dad is spending too much time buried in a newspaper, that's on dad, not because "you're not interesting enough".

    You sort of did read it wrong.  The key words being "The fault lies in you, and "because you picked that loser." Children don't pick their parents, their parents pick each other.  And there is always time to rectify that "mistake" after those choices are made.  Long story short, ... make the problem known and if the behavior persists, drop the dead weight.  It's rarely, if ever, worth holding on to or putting up with, and it often causes more problems than not in the long run, be that with the partner, the children, or both.  
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,078
    edited May 2016

    You don't need OR to tune people out of your life.  If it isn't OR, it would be something else.  Back in the day, when there wasn't a TV, or a computer, or some other gadget, it was simply a newspaper or a magazine. Dad would sit in his chair with his newspaper, or Mom would sit on the couch with her magazine, and they would both be dead to the world around them.  

    Blaming TV, computers, or what have you, because your partner isn't giving you the attention you desire is not the fault of the TV, computer, or what have you.  The fault lies in you.  If not because you're not interesting enough to keep his/her respect and attention, but because you picked that loser, or would allow that loser, to put that TV, computer, or what have you, ahead of you, your relationship, and the family, in the first place.
    Uhh... no.  Not unless I'm reading this wrong.  Nope.  The fault is always with the parent / person of authority, never with the child.  If dad is spending too much time buried in a newspaper, that's on dad, not because "you're not interesting enough".

    You sort of did read it wrong.  The key words being "The fault lies in you, and "because you picked that loser." Children don't pick their parents, their parents pick each other.  And there is always time to rectify that "mistake" after those choices are made.  Long story short, ... make the problem known and if the behavior is not corrected, drop the dead weight.  It's rarely, if ever, worth holding on to.  
    Ah, OK.  What confused me was the pronoun "you"; it wasn't very clear to me who this was supposed to describe.  I see now that you meant it was the spouse's fault for picking an uninteresting partner; I can somewhat agree with this, although this still strikes me as a little cold.  At least this is better than implying it's the child's fault.

    SEANMCAD said:

    two different things.

    1. what is ones responsibility
    2. what is more compelling

    and...I dont think the century old assumptions about child raising is really even needed half the time. 


    It's not centuries old, it's current.  Forgive the expression (in this case it's true), but I know a family lawyer with several decades of experience, as a friend.  It's absolutely the way courts look at things "in this modern age"; it's never the child's fault.  Take any sort of parenting class and this is one of the first things you learn.

    That you are trying to spin that paying more attention to a TV or video game than a family member is socially acceptable, or in fact some type of modern populist movement, is a little scary.

    I hope for your sake you are able to change some of your views if you ever are to have a family.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited May 2016


    SEANMCAD said:

    two different things.

    1. what is ones responsibility
    2. what is more compelling

    and...I dont think the century old assumptions about child raising is really even needed half the time. 


    It's not centuries old, it's current.  Forgive the expression (in this case it's true), but I know a family lawyer with several decades of experience, as a friend.  It's absolutely the way courts look at things "in this modern age"; it's never the child's fault.  Take any sort of parenting class and this is one of the first things you learn.

    That you are trying to spin that paying more attention to a TV or video game than a family member is socially acceptable, or in fact some type of modern populist movement, is a little scary.

    I hope for your sake you are able to change some of your views if you ever are to have a family.
    I dont know what the other poster was talking about I am just saying do not confuse the two different subjects because I am talking about what is more compelling, not what is most responsible.

    I am trying to get people off their high horse and to start accepting the fact that there is a strongly likely hood that they are NOT more interesting or even more valueable then the technology they are attacking.

    is daddy really better at raising his child then the words of Steinbeck? well the answer is not an obvious one

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • peteski123peteski123 Member UncommonPosts: 447
    Nothing different than families sitting in the same room Texting all day I would say
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Nothing different than families sitting in the same room Texting all day I would say
    family sitting in a room talking to each other about the weather is WAY over rated

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • moshramoshra Member RarePosts: 400
    VR already destroyed my family!  He speaks the truth.  Beware!
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,078
    SEANMCAD said:


    SEANMCAD said:

    two different things.

    1. what is ones responsibility
    2. what is more compelling

    and...I dont think the century old assumptions about child raising is really even needed half the time. 


    It's not centuries old, it's current.  Forgive the expression (in this case it's true), but I know a family lawyer with several decades of experience, as a friend.  It's absolutely the way courts look at things "in this modern age"; it's never the child's fault.  Take any sort of parenting class and this is one of the first things you learn.

    That you are trying to spin that paying more attention to a TV or video game than a family member is socially acceptable, or in fact some type of modern populist movement, is a little scary.

    I hope for your sake you are able to change some of your views if you ever are to have a family.
    I dont know what the other poster was talking about I am just saying do not confuse the two different subjects because I am talking about what is more compelling, not what is most responsible.

    I am trying to get people off their high horse and to start accepting the fact that there is a strongly likely hood that they are NOT more interesting or even more valueable then the technology they are attacking.

    is daddy really better at raising his child then the words of Steinbeck? well the answer is not an obvious one
    It's not being on a high-horse to state that children take a lot of attention; it's just a fact.  Kids require lots of attention and loving guidance.  Families require attention.

    Feel free to argue the fact until kingdom come, but as a father nothing can change this for me.  It's not that I 'know better', it's that someone is looking to me for guidance on what to do or what not to do.  I had to jump into a pool to pull my 2 year old kid out of the water a few weeks ago because he leaned over the edge too far while playing.  Now I'm teaching him to swim.  In a few years it will be different.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • carotidcarotid Member UncommonPosts: 425
    SEANMCAD said:
    Nothing different than families sitting in the same room Texting all day I would say
    family sitting in a room talking to each other about the weather is WAY over rated
    Don't ever have any kids. You would suck as a parent.
  • LacedOpiumLacedOpium Member EpicPosts: 2,327
    edited May 2016
    Nothing different than families sitting in the same room Texting all day I would say

    It could be any of a variety of things.  A good argument could be made that these "distractions" are what keep some couples, and families, together.  For if it wasn't that "gadget" taking up that person's time, it could well be another "partner" or "bad friends/influences" on the street.  Again, look within for the problems and try to correct if from that initial standpoint.  After that has been exhausted you can then move to a point of discussion at which time expectations are established.  If those are not met, then there is no respect or consideration, and it becomes obvious that it was not the gadget where the problem lied, the problem lies in you and your relationship(s).  Empower yourself and take charge of your life, and stop making excuses or blaming externalities for existing problems in your life.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    carotid said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Nothing different than families sitting in the same room Texting all day I would say
    family sitting in a room talking to each other about the weather is WAY over rated
    Don't ever have any kids. You would suck as a parent.
    people tend to think they are far more valuable and important then they really are and they often greatly under-estimate the impact and even positive impact of technology and literature.

    sorry...daddy is not more important than Steinbeck (as just one example)

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 9,004
    I had a friend who owned an art gallery.  At lunch time everyone would sit down and eat and talk to one another.  No TV or Radio in the background, no taking phone calls, no electronics.  I must admit it was refreshing.  I was raised with everyone doing their own thing.  It was extremely rare for everyone to spend time together on a regular basis.  One good thing, no one is not talking to anyone or has fallen out with anyone which is a good thing.

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141
    I cant argue that VR is the equivalent of putting your head in a bucket, and UTTERLY and completely tuning the world out around you, which is pretty freaking weird.

    At least with TV, Computers, Smart phones, game consoles, music with headphones, you at least have peripheral perception of the world around you.  With VR you might as well be in a coma.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    goboygo said:
    I cant argue that VR is the equivalent of putting your head in a bucket, and UTTERLY and completely tuning the world out around you, which is pretty freaking weird.

    At least with TV, Computers, Smart phones, game consoles, music with headphones, you at least have peripheral perception of the world around you.  With VR you might as well be in a coma.
    not sure I understand why that is 'weird' but having said that I can understand what you are saying I think

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • ceratop001ceratop001 Member RarePosts: 1,594
    DMKano said:
    Addiction is what destroys families, be it games, gambling, alcohol, etc... those are interchangeable. 

    The root of the issue is always the person, Occulus Rift can't jump and attach itself to your face.

    If something doesn't have a will of its own, chances are it's not the cause of your problems, might want to look in the mirror instead.


    I usually never agree with you, but I must say that was wise.
     
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    This reminds me of the geniuses that said TV was going ruin everyone's minds.......
    We can all laugh, but....

    Measured against the values and ethics of their day, those geniuses could successfully argue that they were right.
    is successfully arguing to be right the same thing as actually being right?
    How could you ever "define" right, with something that is indefinable?

    It would all come down to personal belief.

    What is right today, can be wrong tomorrow and could have been wrong yesterday.  

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    laserit said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    This reminds me of the geniuses that said TV was going ruin everyone's minds.......
    We can all laugh, but....

    Measured against the values and ethics of their day, those geniuses could successfully argue that they were right.
    is successfully arguing to be right the same thing as actually being right?
    How could you ever "define" right, with something that is indefinable?

    It would all come down to personal belief.

    What is right today, can be wrong tomorrow and could have been wrong yesterday.  
    it is possible to 'win an arguement' and have what you are arguing actually be false all at the same time. which is why I ask. 

    They somewhat teach this in law school from what I understand.

    Thus 'being able to argue successfully' and 'actually being right' is not always the same thing

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • MikePaladinMikePaladin Member UncommonPosts: 592
    edited May 2016
    Who cares western civilization will die out anyway . Atheism  patriarchate dead   birth rate of western wite culture dropping it's a matter of time we will go extinct ..no need to worry about relationships. Also considering lots and lots of wester families dont plan to make kids who the hell care of relationships ?
  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 2,141
    SEANMCAD said:
    goboygo said:
    I cant argue that VR is the equivalent of putting your head in a bucket, and UTTERLY and completely tuning the world out around you, which is pretty freaking weird.

    At least with TV, Computers, Smart phones, game consoles, music with headphones, you at least have peripheral perception of the world around you.  With VR you might as well be in a coma.
    not sure I understand why that is 'weird' but having said that I can understand what you are saying I think
    I think its the fact that someone could walk into the same room as you, walk up to you stand in front of you, walk around you, jump up and down and wave their arms around, say something to you, and you would be utterly and completely oblivious to their presence.  The only thing comparable to this would be sleeping or being in a coma.   So that's why I find  putting yourself in that position fully awake to be weird and unnatural. You are basically removing two of your primary senses from reality and placing them elsewhere.

    Removing both site and sound from the real world around you is awkward and possibly hazardous.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited May 2016
    goboygo said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    goboygo said:
    I cant argue that VR is the equivalent of putting your head in a bucket, and UTTERLY and completely tuning the world out around you, which is pretty freaking weird.

    At least with TV, Computers, Smart phones, game consoles, music with headphones, you at least have peripheral perception of the world around you.  With VR you might as well be in a coma.
    not sure I understand why that is 'weird' but having said that I can understand what you are saying I think
    I think its the fact that someone could walk into the same room as you, walk up to you stand in front of you, walk around you, jump up and down and wave their arms around, say something to you, and you would be utterly and completely oblivious to their presence.  The only thing comparable to this would be sleeping or being in a coma.   So that's why I find  putting yourself in that position fully awake to be weird and unnatural. You are basically removing two of your primary senses from reality and placing them elsewhere.

    Removing both site and sound from the real world around you is awkward and possibly hazardous.
    as someone who doesnt have anyone in the room of which he plans to use VR I find the illustration.....well...weird actually. Most of us are not planning to use it at the local commune or baseball stadium


    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • moshramoshra Member RarePosts: 400
    SEANMCAD said:
    goboygo said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    goboygo said:
    I cant argue that VR is the equivalent of putting your head in a bucket, and UTTERLY and completely tuning the world out around you, which is pretty freaking weird.

    At least with TV, Computers, Smart phones, game consoles, music with headphones, you at least have peripheral perception of the world around you.  With VR you might as well be in a coma.
    not sure I understand why that is 'weird' but having said that I can understand what you are saying I think
    I think its the fact that someone could walk into the same room as you, walk up to you stand in front of you, walk around you, jump up and down and wave their arms around, say something to you, and you would be utterly and completely oblivious to their presence.  The only thing comparable to this would be sleeping or being in a coma.   So that's why I find  putting yourself in that position fully awake to be weird and unnatural. You are basically removing two of your primary senses from reality and placing them elsewhere.

    Removing both site and sound from the real world around you is awkward and possibly hazardous.
    as someone who doesnt have anyone in the room of which he plans to use VR I find the illustration.....well...weird actually. Most of us are not planning to use it at the local commune or baseball stadium


    I might at a baseball stadium.  I'm a Padres fan, so I have a higher chance of seeing them win with a headset on than watching the real game.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    moshra said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    goboygo said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    goboygo said:
    I cant argue that VR is the equivalent of putting your head in a bucket, and UTTERLY and completely tuning the world out around you, which is pretty freaking weird.

    At least with TV, Computers, Smart phones, game consoles, music with headphones, you at least have peripheral perception of the world around you.  With VR you might as well be in a coma.
    not sure I understand why that is 'weird' but having said that I can understand what you are saying I think
    I think its the fact that someone could walk into the same room as you, walk up to you stand in front of you, walk around you, jump up and down and wave their arms around, say something to you, and you would be utterly and completely oblivious to their presence.  The only thing comparable to this would be sleeping or being in a coma.   So that's why I find  putting yourself in that position fully awake to be weird and unnatural. You are basically removing two of your primary senses from reality and placing them elsewhere.

    Removing both site and sound from the real world around you is awkward and possibly hazardous.
    as someone who doesnt have anyone in the room of which he plans to use VR I find the illustration.....well...weird actually. Most of us are not planning to use it at the local commune or baseball stadium


    I might at a baseball stadium.  I'm a Padres fan, so I have a higher chance of seeing them win with a headset on than watching the real game.
    wait let me see if I get this right.

    You would drive to the ballpark, buy a ticket, get in some seats, put on the headset to watch the game instead of...

    staying at home to put on the headset to watch the game....

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • fs23otmfs23otm Member RarePosts: 506
    VR is a fad... it will die out like it did in the 90's.... then some younger generation will think they can do it better and it will come back in a different iteration only to go out as a fad once more.

    AR on the other hand could have direct impact in how we as humans interact with out real enviroments... AR is the next big thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.