What do Halo & suicide bombing have in common?

[NorthernComfort]

When the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the life of the individual means very little to himself

What?
Wouldn't the life of the individual mean to himself whatever the individuals life means to the individual, regardless of the needs or life of the society, hence defining the individual in relation to society?
*head spins*

[Binks]

It's just the vocabulary we have and thus gets used as an efficient shorthand, somehow understood by most gamers, to express something else which is still pretty much wholly limited to being within the context of the game.

There's that, and then there's the factor that certain terminology (curse words) has recently gained an aura of power and rebellion, like how shouting a curse word instantly makes you seem more mature to your friends when you're below a certain age (and, with some groups, well above a certain age).

(Additionally, in my experience a desensitization to game violence doesn't correspond to desensitization to real-world and legitimate violence; though I would hypothesize that the reverse probably holds true. I have no data to back this up other than observation of most people I know who play violent video games and how we've no real problem slaughtering pixels - heh, 'recreational polygonicide' - we tend to be rather against violence outside of our games. /shrug)

That's the same experience I have. In our gaming group two of the members are somewhat desensitized to normal violence (not to any dangerous degree, of course, but desensitized enough to enjoy telling stories about shooting animals for fun). They're also very desensitized to the game violence. Myself and another member aren't so desensitized to real violence (I got a little sick hearing one of them describe going after a lizard with a shotgun) but we're also desensitized to game violence. Someday someone needs to do a real study of this and find out what the relation is, I suspect it's something very close to this but it would be nice to have a legitimate experiment. Given the political charging of video game violence, however, it's unlikely they'll ever test it.

When the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the life of the individual means very little to himself.

I agree with Deacon and Northern, this phrase doesn't really hold true. What does hold true, however, is that 'When the needs of society are great, and the individual cares about that society more than themselves, the life of the individual means very little to himself.' If the individual considers the societies needs to be more important then their own life, then their life means little to them.

[Mae Dean]

When the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the life of the individual means very little to himself.

On what, exactly, do you base this assertion??

Star Trek 2 : The Wrath of Khan, motherfucker.

[AlexanderBarca]

I agree with Fuggle on Bandersnatch's latter point. However, something elsehere seriously needs to be addressed.

When the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the life of the individual means very little to himself.

On what, exactly, do you base this assertion?? I beg to differ.

In addition to The Wrath of Kahn, I would think that the very existence of suicide bombers, or anyone throughout history who has been willing to risk or throw their lives away because of an idea that they believe will 'better' society (whether or NOT this idea is right or moral) pretty much evidences this fact.

[Binks]

When the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the life of the individual means very little to himself.

On what, exactly, do you base this assertion??

Star Trek 2 : The Wrath of Khan.

??? Are you talking about the quote "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few"? Because I've never read that to mean anything like what Bandersnatch said, the only way for you to interpret that quote as the other quote is if the individual in question is a Vulcan, perfectly logical. No human being is perfectly logical (hence why Vulcans made a good alien race).

I've always read the quote as meaning that from a perfectly logical perspective the needs of society should outweigh the needs of an individual. How you can generalize that to people who don't' have a perfectly logical perspective, and then add on that the individuals life means little. I highly doubt even Spock, in a fictional sense of course, didn't value his life at that point. More likely he valued it less than the lives of the others, which is a different thing entirely.

And so I propose this as the closest interpretation of The Wrath of Khan to real life. "From a perfectly logical perspective, when the needs of a large group of people outweigh the needs of an individual, the needs of the individual should mean less to him then the needs of that large group." (You can replace needs with life, as that's a need)

And before anyone says I'm being pedantic the two are very dissimilar, one is saying that the individual doesn't care about his life, the other is saying that the individual cares about their life less than those they believe they are defending. One leads people to do insane and stupid things, throwing their lives away for nothing, the other leads individuals to make worthy sacrifices, i.e. throwing themselves on a grenade to save their comrades versus running headlong at an entrenched enemy for no good reason.

[Deacon]

Binks is right.

This is the line Bandersnatch said:

When the needs of society outweigh the needs of the individual, the life of the individual means very little to himself.

That's NOT Wrath of Khan, which was the personal logic/philosophy to which Spock adhered and a general concept regarding how leaders should make decisions. No, that's...nonsense. Setting aside the whole idea of the individual and society and their respective needs and the nature of their relationship, when given a choice most people will choose to benefit themselves rather than society as a whole. It happens every day in nearly every home and business. At no point does the perceived needs of society devalue an individual's life in their own eyes.

I would think that the very existence of suicide bombers, or anyone throughout history who has been willing to risk or throw their lives away because of an idea that they believe will 'better' society (whether or NOT this idea is right or moral) pretty much evidences this fact.

No, not at all. These Muslim suicide bombers are not doing it because they've considered it and believe that they will better society in such a significant way that it outweighs the value they place in their own life. They're doing it because they've been indoctrinated and brainwashed to the point where they ask how high when a leader tells them Allah wants them to jump off a cliff. It's not at all a societal thing, but a religious and usually irrational thing. People who went to war to fight the Nazis weren't doing it for "society". They were doing it for their family and friends at home. They value they placed in their own life was not lessened. Rather, the value they placed in stopping the Axis powers from conquering the world and making life miserable for them and their loved ones at home was high enough that they put themselves in a position of significant risk, hoping that the guy in their sights would get it instead of them.

[bagheadinc]

[suncrafter]

Better then average.

[Deacon]

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Also, it's "than". Please make a note of it.