** This thread discusses the article: Playing at Life **
** This thread discusses the Content article: Playing at Life **
0
** This thread discusses the Content article: Playing at Life **
0
Joel said: 'complete freedom, democracy, and justice'. I'd like to know how an educated man can put those words together in any context?I said, obviously jokingly, that I wanted 'complete freedom, democracy, and justice' to be the objective of a video game. Do you have a problem with complete freedom, democracy and/or justice. I think that they are all very noble objectives. I like to dream every once in a while and shoot for noble objectives, even if I don't think they are fully achievable under the current circumstances. Anonymous also said:
Ok, so let's get your mother out on the field and have a little wardrobe malfunction.If you bothered to read the article you would know that I did not say that I was or was not a proponent of wardrobe malfunctions, just that when you are making up a list of evil things, I think that a wardrobe malfunction should rank well down on the list compared to some other things that people complain about less. And there is a question of consent here. My mother would never consent to be in a half-time show, let alone consent to have a wardrobe malfunction. Janet Jackson certainly consented to the first and there is some debate as to whether she consented to the second or it was an accident. Also, in the future I would thank you to leave my mother out of this. I read your forum posting after coming back from visiting her in the hospital, so if my response is more hostile than I have been in the past, that's why.
If you have a dream, please identify it as such, I thought these were your beliefs.In the article, I didn't say it was part of a dream, but I did propose it simply as an objective of a video game, as an alternative to some of the more violent video games out there now. To be honest I never expected that line to be taken quite as seriously as you seem to be taking it, particularly considering the description of this hypothetical game also proposed that
"You'd get extra points if, during your bloodless revolution, you also improved the food, service, décor, and prices at local restaurants. There'd be more points if you, through talk alone, convinced local taxi drivers to obey traffic laws and drive safely. (I'd personally like to invite anyone who reaches that level in the game to come and visit Toronto. We need you.)"ctibodoe said:
Even in a dream, democracy can never equal complete freedom, even in a dream justice and complete freedom ....I'll agree with you that in the real world democracy cannot equal freedom cannot equal justice. In a democratic and just society, we are not, for example, free to murder somebody simply because we don't like him or her. But in an ideal world, the world of a video game perhaps, it is possible to conceive of a fictional society where everyone's brain is wired such that he or she would never conceive of doing anything unjust. In such a fictional world there could be total freedom parallel with justice and democracy. Obviously it's not possible in our real world. You are definitely right there. ctibodoe said:
I was just pointing out if it is of such light value in the scheme of things surely it must be okay for female members of your family, or is it just light when its someone elses'.I get back to something that I said in an earlier post (although it appears below rather than above because I accidently submitted it as a new post rather than a reply). It comes down to a matter of consent. My nature is such that if a member of my family had an intentional "wardrobe malfunction" in public it would make me feel very uncomfortable, but I also think that if she did it knowingly, intentionally and in a jurisdiction where it is legal, then my discomfort would be my problem, not theirs and I should not try to impose my views on them. I hadn't intended to get into my views on the specific Super Bowl incident because I don't think my views are important and because, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that the incident was particularly important (my point in the article). But since someone will probably bring it up here, let me preempt the question. My understanding is the Janet Jackson claimed that the incident was unintentional. I have never met Janet Jackson, I am reasonably confident that I never will meet her, I am not a fan, nor did I see that Super Bowl half time show so I have no basis to judge the veracity of her claim. If she is telling the truth then it is an accident that happened and I think that everybody should have gotten over it much faster than they did. I seriously doubt that a single person's life was seriously harmed by the sight of Jackson's breast. But some people's lives were definitely shattered by the sick person I talked about in the article who decided to mimic the action in Grand Theft Auto and kill a few people. My point was and is that of the two, I think that we should spend more time being appalled by the latter rather than the former. If--IF--the "wardrobe malfunction" was intentional then I think that it was wrong, but not because I think that a female breast or its public display is evil or depraved. I think that it was wrong because Jackson had to know that a lot of people would object. Since the display of a female breast in such a situation was very much the exception, not the rule, those objectors had no reason to expect that there would be a public display of her breast, so they had no opportunity to avoid the sight that they object to. They did not have a "viewer discretion advised" warning that would have allowed them to boycott the Super Bowl, look away during the half time show, or keep their children away from it if they found the display objectionable. That is what I think is wrong--assuming of course that the "wardrobe malfunction" was indeed intentional.
Comment