Errr..... I think it's acceptable to use the word informally. Not every use of the word "traitor" means "guilty of the high crime of treason".
Also, Inigo Montoya was immortal? That explains surviving being stabbed in the gut and both arms and then riding off into the sunset with nary a sign of medical attention. Probably needed to cut off his head.
You make some good points in that first paragraph about how much freedom a science fiction or alternate universe setting can have in its set pieces, and that spectacle is certainly a draw. But what drew me to Mass Effect was less the exotic set pieces and more the engaging story and characters.
In general, that's what always draws me in with an RPG, and that's why I tend to disagree on Zelda, if you can even consider the games comparable (action adventure vs immersive western RPG). I mean, Dragon Age is less like Zelda than Mass Effect is like Halo, and the comparison seems about as fair.
While I agree that Dragon Age is largely building on what is known, I think that's a strength. It's a deep and complex world full of lore, and familiar fantasy tropes make it more accessible. But once you're past that, virtually nothing in the game meets the expectations of its nearest applicable analogue in other fiction.
If you want to really bring out the full artistic experience of a sophisticated setting and story based on old tropes, make the game tighter, do away with dialog trees. Give the player a single character with a personality, and build a very linear narrative. That's why Zelda does so amazingly well. They take old tropes, make them very tight, and the creators create a very interesting experience.
I'm not really following what this accomplishes or why this is necessary. In fact, I tend to think that a great deal of choice and freedom is what makes a deep and complex world worth exploring. Why go to all this trouble if you're going to railroad the player? Zelda is a fine example. Its lore is extraordinarily shallow, and its main character has the personality of a tree branch. It works for that game, because it's about the childlike wonder of it all.
Still, I wouldn't presume to say you're wrong. Zelda is a great game. I don't exactly see why sword and sorcery games need to be like Zelda, and I, personally, have grown tired of every Zelda game basically rehashing its predecessors (100000 to 1 odds the next Zelda game has a boomerang), but it's undeniably a formula that works, and it's hard to argue with the quality. To each his own.
The issue I have with this analogy amounts to scope and creative freedom. A WWII game isn't, by and large, a setting in which you can exercise a lot of creative discretion, if you're trying to be remotely historically accurate. Fantasy sword and sorcery, by comparison, isn't even a setting. You have some basic guidelines (dwarves are short; elves have pointed ears), and then you make your own setting from there. The dwarves of Dragon Age aren't the proud, honorable mountain people of Tolkien. They're just as petty and flawed as humans, given to backstabbing and infighting. The elves of Dragon Age aren't the proud, graceful, and enigmatic people of Tolkien. By and large, they are slaves who have forgotten their culture and heritage after being conquered and subjugated by humans. Are dwarves still short? Do elves still have pointed ears? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a retreading of the same old fantasy we've seen time and again.
On the other hand, if you just don't care for the notion of medieval technology (e.g. swinging a sword), I guess there isn't much that can save it.
Seems a faulty analogy. I will grant you that military technology changes over time, but I thought Jews and Christians believed in moral absolutes and that the bible is supposed to be the word of God. Are you suggesting that morality is as mutable as military tech? I don't actually disagree, being something of a moral relativist myself, but that seems contrary to the Judeo-Christian concept of morality.
Well the kiddies don't understand than an fps on a game console is not a real fps.
As an adult I understand that you need a mouse and keyboard for a real fps.
Meh, I used to think so too. Exclusively played fps games on the PC. Duke Nukem, Quake, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, the various Unreal Tournament games. How on earth could you accomplish any of that with a controller? Then I actually tried it. Then I tried it some more. Then I found I was actually getting pretty good at it. And finally, I realized I was better with a controller than I ever had been with a mouse and keyboard. Does that mean I'll beat a person of roughly equivalent skill who is using a mouse and keyboard? Maybe not. But can he lounge comfortably on his couch?
Hmmm... is it because you see the sex and violence as a gimmick? That might be true of some games, but I wouldn't say that's generally true of M-rated games.
Most western RPGs are M-rated. Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Dragon Age: Origins, for example.
Almost all shooters are M-rated, but they vary from the relatively shallow Gears of War (which I still greatly enjoy) to the immersive and emotionally engaging Half-Life 2.
Basically, a game that features sex or violence is going to tend to be M-rated, but having sex or violence doesn't mean it can't have something more profound going for it, whether it's a great story or great gameplay.
And the Wii isn't exactly very powerful either. Even if the DS is only as powerful as the N64, it's still only one generation weaker than the Wii, which is basically a Gamecube with a fancy controller.
Well that's airtight. Surely there are no other factors, such as driving skill, relative number of school buses on the road, peak driving times for school buses, the fact that they are giant and yellow, or the fact that they are mobile stop signs.
Yes, we could go too far with legislating safety or we could not go far enough. We absolutely have to find a middle ground that is reasonable. My problem is that everyone assumes that reasonable middle ground is at "zero tolerance".
At some point, we have to accept that bad things are going to happen in our society, and we can hold the guilty party responsible. If you engage in risky behavior that harms you or others, then you're responsible. Some risky behavior we should limit, others we shouldn't. These studies and experiments have, perhaps, shown fairly conclusively that it is unsafe to navigate a skill-intensive obstacle course while staying physically and mentally engaged with a phone call. But does that mean that we should categorically outlaw phones on the road? How unsafe is it to talk on the phone on a straight shot down 20 miles of interstate that you've driven 500 times?
It's not going to make me feel any better if someone is texting a friend, changes lanes, and runs over me on my motorcycle, but, on the other hand, if I die in a massive explosion due to stove negligence, the last thought that goes through my head won't be how we should have outlawed gas stoves, either
I feel like a bit of a contradiction. I'm a motorcyclist and get really nervous on my bike when I see drivers on their cell phones or who look otherwise distracted. Figure they could fail to notice me and if we get into an accident, I'm not exactly surrounded by tons of steel and inflatable cushions. But here comes the contradiction. When I'm driving my car, I do that sort of thing myself, and I don't think it's a rationalization to say it can be done safer than you say, regardless of the supposed studies involved.
I'm reminded of the episode of Mythbusters where they put Adam and Kari on a cell phone and forced them to carry on an engaged conversation with Jamie while navigating a driving skills course. And, unsurprisingly, they did extremely poorly. On the other hand, if you're on your cell phone, you have the option they didn't to blow off the conversation if the road requires your attention, and I commonly do. Also, most driving doesn't require nearly the level of attention that a driving skills test does. For example, I spend about 20 minutes on a 4 lane interstate on my way to work. Provided I don't leave my lane, don't follow people closely, and periodically check my surroundings, I could almost get away with reading a book for all the attention that is required of me (I'm exaggerating, yes).
So I'm torn. I disagree with the general notion that it is never acceptably safe to engage in distracting activities while driving, but I also don't think that most people possess the judgement to engage in such activities safely.
And for the record, yes, I do agree that any distraction at all causes a reduction in safety, but we treat it like a bogeyman. There's nearly always something we could be doing to be safer, and if we aren't doing it, it's because we feel our driving is safe *enough*, and I think it's possible to meet that standard in some circumstances even while indulging in distractions.
meh, I thought the comment was amusing. Smile-worthy at least. I guess one man's "tit for tat" is another man's "good-natured banter". YMMV indeed. Also, I don't suppose the irony of writing a whole post just to accuse him of needing the last word is lost on you.
Hmmm.... I thought he meant technical difficulties with reverse engineering and getting the products approved by the FDA. In other words, that technical difficulties make the patents irrelevant, but if we got rid of them and then got over those technical difficulties, we'd need the patents again.
Sounds like you're talking more about there being technical difficulties with the patent system itself and you think he was proposing we continue using it anyway because they might get fixed.
Funny. When I go to a strip club, I don't *feel* like a manipulated victim. I voluntarily part with money for the privilege of enjoying womens' bodies. Seems like a pretty fair exchange of payment for services to me. I mean, I'm not being misled, and I feel that the exchange is worthwhile, so I don't see any exploitation going on.
At least no more than a restaurant exploits your desire for food or an amusement park exploits your desire for wholesome entertainment and cheap thrills.
Also, I'm not sure how much the women are in charge. That's like saying that your maid is in charge because she receives money for doing your laundry. Sure, she can quit if she doesn't like her situation, but the universal currency is not sex or laundry, it's.... currency, and the person holding the cash is the person in charge.
Not to contradict the notion that a woman who strips is taking charge of her own sexuality and using it for her own gain. That absolutely is happening, but the notion that men are weak and helpless victims is laughable.
If we accept physical violence as a respectable method for resolving disputes, then women will be at a significant disadvantage (past a certain age). Or would you give different advice to a girl? What about to a boy who doesn't have the courage to fight? Does he deserve the harassment more than someone who does? Regardless, since there's no positive correlation as far as I know between being right and being tough, we potentially reinforce or encourage the behavior of jerks.
Besides, I should be able to solve the problem without risking physical harm to myself. Adult disputes should not be solved through physical violence, so why should we teach our children otherwise?
One qualification: I believe in defending yourself. If you are attacked as an adult or as a child, fight back with everything you have. Like the old adage about starting vs ending fights.
You defend MikeeUSA's feelings by saying he has come to his extremist views from years of being exposed to extreme views.
So, how come that you cannot come to the same conclusion in reverse? That those women you quote (often out of context) have come to their view from the decades, centuries even millenia of extremist views women have endured?
I find it reasonable to conclude that that is the case for some of them. I also think it's irrelevant and does not at all justify hurtful speech targeted at a gender group... but then again, I wouldn't defend MikeUSA.
All men are rapist. It was once the law that a woman had to obey her husband without question. Submit to him regardless of her own wishes. How do you define rape else then forcing sex against someones will?
So all men did that? That's a fairly bold statement to make. I don't think it's reasonable to infer from a sexist law that all men forced their wives to have sex with them against their will. Besides, the statement was present tense. I am not a rapist. I am a man. Therefore, not all men are rapists. Now that we have established the statement's falsehood (that was easy), can we agree that calling a man a rapist is offensive and hurtful? And can we then agree that it is sexist to direct offensive and hurtful speech at a person based purely on that person's gender?
I'm not sure why you're defending this comment...
The marriage comment. Since we now regonize the right of a person to refuse sex even within marriage and that a woman is no longer the property of the husband, traditional marriage has indeed been abolished. It has been replaced by an entirely different version with competly different laws, just using the same name. The old was destroyed to make place for a new better more equal version.
I admit to some ignorance here, but I somehow doubt that Sheila Cronin (whoever that is) made that comment back when women were legally considered the property of men. I doubt, in those days, that an organization like NOW would have been permitted to exist. So, consequently, I find it hard to believe that she was talking about anything other than the present incarnation of marriage. Not that I'm a big fan of marriage anyway, but some people like it, and I'm fairly sure it's fully opt-in.
To kill an infant. We do this all the time, the west owns it wealth and health to the fact that women no longer drop a new kid every year. It allows for very long, expensive education and a high concentration of best food and medical care, rather then waste it on a dozen kids, most who will die because they do not get the resources they need. Why do you think Africa does so poorly? Everytime they do a bit better, they get an explosion of new people who they can't feed or educate. Birth control IS the answer. Her proposal should be seen as a way to shake things up, overkill to get people thinking about just what it means for a family that has no control over the number of children.
My gosh that is a bold statement.... to put the entire success of the modern developed world squarely on the shoulders of contraception and abortion... Forget about evolution of political and economic thought. Forget about rule of law and civilizations founded on the principles of human rights. Apparently we owe our success to contraception. Hey, I won't even deny that it has helped, but come on...
to decontaminate the planet. Again, an extreem suggestion but the counter result of the extreem in which baby girls in china are killed because they are not valued.
Wait, aren't you just trying to distract us now? Formally, I guess that'd be tu quoque fallacy or something similar, but it basically just amounts to "Hmmm... yeah, that does sound bad.... but look at this, which is also bad"
What's your point exactly? It doesn't make what she said *less* bad....
Well.... I am not a physicist, but I think the main reason why you don't feel it is that every atom of your body is accelerated at roughly the same rate with weak gravitational forces. If you're accelerated in a rollercoaster, the chair exerts force on your back, your back exerts force on your neck, your neck exerts force on your skull, and your skull exerts force on your brain. The force is heavily concentrated rather than broadly distributed. Concentrating the force puts stress on your body. For example, your brain will subtly deform and compact under high acceleration in a centrifuge or rollercoaster, and you might feel sick. When free-falling, every part of the brain is accelerated more or less equally, so it maintains its physical state.
However, with a massive gravitational force, the difference in distance between one part of your body and the center of the opposing mass and another part of your body and the center of the opposing mass could result in dramatically different forces between parts of your body, causing similar stresses.
In short, I don't think this is a trait that scales without consequences.
And I could say this exact thing about "drugs". Nobody is forcing you to go out and pop 500 pills against your will.
Well, for the purposes of the analogy, by the time the drug is actually having its effect on you, your will is being chemically subverted, which we distinguish from other forms of manipulation.
Still, you're right about no one forcing you to take the drug in the first place. So why *are* they illegal? So we can protect everyone from themselves? It seems to me that control over your own mind and body should be a pretty fundamental right. And to stay a little more on topic, it also seems to me that people should be responsible for their own decisions.
I don't advocate letting companies outright lie in advertising, but letting them use manipulative techniques is better than the alternative. Should it be illegal to show an attractive woman in a beer ad? Should it be illegal to show people being happy after ordering Pizza Hut? What is being suggested here? How draconian should our legal system be?
I like a lot of what you're saying, but I think the comparison to drugs is specious. Personally I don't think there is a good case for making drugs illegal, but even if there were, I don't think it'd be the fact that they're mind-altering. Alcohol, for example, is perfectly legal. As for advertising, I agree with you that it's manipulative, but I don't see a strong case for outlawing things simply for being manipulative. I'm being manipulative if I try to convince you to give me a ride home from work. It's only shady if I'm blatantly dishonest, preventing you from making an informed decision. The FTC regulates that sort of thing in advertising. Does it do a perfect job? No, advertisers are free to use manipulative techniques (like only publishing positive reviews and allowing consumers to believe that no other reviews exist). But we have to draw a line somewhere in what should be illegal and what shouldn't, and there's a point where consumers have to be responsible for their own actions. We can't make a law so restrictive as to prevent anyone from ever being tricked.
Also Ratchet and Clank for certain sections and Folklore for pulling the souls or whatever out of enemies. Motion shake for melee in Resistance 2 was dumb, but you could still use a button, so I guess it wouldn't count as required.
Might be more for all I know. I don't own or play very many PS3 games.
Of course, I'm not anti motion controls generally. Only when they're poorly implemented, and they haven't been for the PS3 games I've played.
Is that dramatically different from the way George Kirk sacrifices himself at the beginning of the film to save his wife, child, and the rest of the escaping crew?
The focus of Wrath of Khan was on the personal vendetta Khan had against Kirk and the Enterprise. It was Ahab and the whale, and his vendetta, predictably proved his undoing, but because it was a *good* character-centric action piece doesn't make it preachy and philosophy-centric like some other Trek. I would venture that the new Trek is also a good character-centric action piece.
Slashdot Mirror
Errr..... I think it's acceptable to use the word informally. Not every use of the word "traitor" means "guilty of the high crime of treason".
Also, Inigo Montoya was immortal? That explains surviving being stabbed in the gut and both arms and then riding off into the sunset with nary a sign of medical attention. Probably needed to cut off his head.
Hey a girl on Slashdot, NEAT! Wow, like, I'm really talking with a real life girl... for like the first time EVER!!!! Do you wanna date my avatar???
Hey, a creep on slashdot...
You make some good points in that first paragraph about how much freedom a science fiction or alternate universe setting can have in its set pieces, and that spectacle is certainly a draw. But what drew me to Mass Effect was less the exotic set pieces and more the engaging story and characters.
In general, that's what always draws me in with an RPG, and that's why I tend to disagree on Zelda, if you can even consider the games comparable (action adventure vs immersive western RPG). I mean, Dragon Age is less like Zelda than Mass Effect is like Halo, and the comparison seems about as fair.
While I agree that Dragon Age is largely building on what is known, I think that's a strength. It's a deep and complex world full of lore, and familiar fantasy tropes make it more accessible. But once you're past that, virtually nothing in the game meets the expectations of its nearest applicable analogue in other fiction.
If you want to really bring out the full artistic experience of a sophisticated setting and story based on old tropes, make the game tighter, do away with dialog trees. Give the player a single character with a personality, and build a very linear narrative. That's why Zelda does so amazingly well. They take old tropes, make them very tight, and the creators create a very interesting experience.
I'm not really following what this accomplishes or why this is necessary. In fact, I tend to think that a great deal of choice and freedom is what makes a deep and complex world worth exploring. Why go to all this trouble if you're going to railroad the player? Zelda is a fine example. Its lore is extraordinarily shallow, and its main character has the personality of a tree branch. It works for that game, because it's about the childlike wonder of it all.
Still, I wouldn't presume to say you're wrong. Zelda is a great game. I don't exactly see why sword and sorcery games need to be like Zelda, and I, personally, have grown tired of every Zelda game basically rehashing its predecessors (100000 to 1 odds the next Zelda game has a boomerang), but it's undeniably a formula that works, and it's hard to argue with the quality. To each his own.
The issue I have with this analogy amounts to scope and creative freedom. A WWII game isn't, by and large, a setting in which you can exercise a lot of creative discretion, if you're trying to be remotely historically accurate. Fantasy sword and sorcery, by comparison, isn't even a setting. You have some basic guidelines (dwarves are short; elves have pointed ears), and then you make your own setting from there. The dwarves of Dragon Age aren't the proud, honorable mountain people of Tolkien. They're just as petty and flawed as humans, given to backstabbing and infighting. The elves of Dragon Age aren't the proud, graceful, and enigmatic people of Tolkien. By and large, they are slaves who have forgotten their culture and heritage after being conquered and subjugated by humans. Are dwarves still short? Do elves still have pointed ears? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a retreading of the same old fantasy we've seen time and again.
On the other hand, if you just don't care for the notion of medieval technology (e.g. swinging a sword), I guess there isn't much that can save it.
Seems a faulty analogy. I will grant you that military technology changes over time, but I thought Jews and Christians believed in moral absolutes and that the bible is supposed to be the word of God. Are you suggesting that morality is as mutable as military tech? I don't actually disagree, being something of a moral relativist myself, but that seems contrary to the Judeo-Christian concept of morality.
Well the kiddies don't understand than an fps on a game console is not a real fps. As an adult I understand that you need a mouse and keyboard for a real fps.
Meh, I used to think so too. Exclusively played fps games on the PC. Duke Nukem, Quake, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, the various Unreal Tournament games. How on earth could you accomplish any of that with a controller? Then I actually tried it. Then I tried it some more. Then I found I was actually getting pretty good at it. And finally, I realized I was better with a controller than I ever had been with a mouse and keyboard. Does that mean I'll beat a person of roughly equivalent skill who is using a mouse and keyboard? Maybe not. But can he lounge comfortably on his couch?
Hmmm... is it because you see the sex and violence as a gimmick? That might be true of some games, but I wouldn't say that's generally true of M-rated games.
Most western RPGs are M-rated. Mass Effect, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Dragon Age: Origins, for example.
Almost all shooters are M-rated, but they vary from the relatively shallow Gears of War (which I still greatly enjoy) to the immersive and emotionally engaging Half-Life 2.
Basically, a game that features sex or violence is going to tend to be M-rated, but having sex or violence doesn't mean it can't have something more profound going for it, whether it's a great story or great gameplay.
And the Wii isn't exactly very powerful either. Even if the DS is only as powerful as the N64, it's still only one generation weaker than the Wii, which is basically a Gamecube with a fancy controller.
By your logic, school buses should be the biggest hazard on the road. They account for fewer than 0.33% of accidents.
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/personal_injury/bus/statistics.html
Well that's airtight. Surely there are no other factors, such as driving skill, relative number of school buses on the road, peak driving times for school buses, the fact that they are giant and yellow, or the fact that they are mobile stop signs.
Yes, we could go too far with legislating safety or we could not go far enough. We absolutely have to find a middle ground that is reasonable. My problem is that everyone assumes that reasonable middle ground is at "zero tolerance".
At some point, we have to accept that bad things are going to happen in our society, and we can hold the guilty party responsible. If you engage in risky behavior that harms you or others, then you're responsible. Some risky behavior we should limit, others we shouldn't. These studies and experiments have, perhaps, shown fairly conclusively that it is unsafe to navigate a skill-intensive obstacle course while staying physically and mentally engaged with a phone call. But does that mean that we should categorically outlaw phones on the road? How unsafe is it to talk on the phone on a straight shot down 20 miles of interstate that you've driven 500 times?
It's not going to make me feel any better if someone is texting a friend, changes lanes, and runs over me on my motorcycle, but, on the other hand, if I die in a massive explosion due to stove negligence, the last thought that goes through my head won't be how we should have outlawed gas stoves, either
Lots of unexplained, non-applicable links.
Not that I'm much better
I feel like a bit of a contradiction. I'm a motorcyclist and get really nervous on my bike when I see drivers on their cell phones or who look otherwise distracted. Figure they could fail to notice me and if we get into an accident, I'm not exactly surrounded by tons of steel and inflatable cushions. But here comes the contradiction. When I'm driving my car, I do that sort of thing myself, and I don't think it's a rationalization to say it can be done safer than you say, regardless of the supposed studies involved.
I'm reminded of the episode of Mythbusters where they put Adam and Kari on a cell phone and forced them to carry on an engaged conversation with Jamie while navigating a driving skills course. And, unsurprisingly, they did extremely poorly. On the other hand, if you're on your cell phone, you have the option they didn't to blow off the conversation if the road requires your attention, and I commonly do. Also, most driving doesn't require nearly the level of attention that a driving skills test does. For example, I spend about 20 minutes on a 4 lane interstate on my way to work. Provided I don't leave my lane, don't follow people closely, and periodically check my surroundings, I could almost get away with reading a book for all the attention that is required of me (I'm exaggerating, yes).
So I'm torn. I disagree with the general notion that it is never acceptably safe to engage in distracting activities while driving, but I also don't think that most people possess the judgement to engage in such activities safely.
And for the record, yes, I do agree that any distraction at all causes a reduction in safety, but we treat it like a bogeyman. There's nearly always something we could be doing to be safer, and if we aren't doing it, it's because we feel our driving is safe *enough*, and I think it's possible to meet that standard in some circumstances even while indulging in distractions.
It might for bees. Unless they're sick of it from being around it all day :)
2018: After years of only releasing one study per year, scientists decide to get off their collective asses and do some real work.
meh, I thought the comment was amusing. Smile-worthy at least. I guess one man's "tit for tat" is another man's "good-natured banter". YMMV indeed. Also, I don't suppose the irony of writing a whole post just to accuse him of needing the last word is lost on you.
Hmmm.... I thought he meant technical difficulties with reverse engineering and getting the products approved by the FDA. In other words, that technical difficulties make the patents irrelevant, but if we got rid of them and then got over those technical difficulties, we'd need the patents again.
Sounds like you're talking more about there being technical difficulties with the patent system itself and you think he was proposing we continue using it anyway because they might get fixed.
Funny. When I go to a strip club, I don't *feel* like a manipulated victim. I voluntarily part with money for the privilege of enjoying womens' bodies. Seems like a pretty fair exchange of payment for services to me. I mean, I'm not being misled, and I feel that the exchange is worthwhile, so I don't see any exploitation going on.
At least no more than a restaurant exploits your desire for food or an amusement park exploits your desire for wholesome entertainment and cheap thrills.
Also, I'm not sure how much the women are in charge. That's like saying that your maid is in charge because she receives money for doing your laundry. Sure, she can quit if she doesn't like her situation, but the universal currency is not sex or laundry, it's.... currency, and the person holding the cash is the person in charge. Not to contradict the notion that a woman who strips is taking charge of her own sexuality and using it for her own gain. That absolutely is happening, but the notion that men are weak and helpless victims is laughable.
Reminds me of another joke with the punchline "voodoo dildo my ass!"
If we accept physical violence as a respectable method for resolving disputes, then women will be at a significant disadvantage (past a certain age). Or would you give different advice to a girl? What about to a boy who doesn't have the courage to fight? Does he deserve the harassment more than someone who does? Regardless, since there's no positive correlation as far as I know between being right and being tough, we potentially reinforce or encourage the behavior of jerks.
Besides, I should be able to solve the problem without risking physical harm to myself. Adult disputes should not be solved through physical violence, so why should we teach our children otherwise?
One qualification: I believe in defending yourself. If you are attacked as an adult or as a child, fight back with everything you have. Like the old adage about starting vs ending fights.
You defend MikeeUSA's feelings by saying he has come to his extremist views from years of being exposed to extreme views.
So, how come that you cannot come to the same conclusion in reverse? That those women you quote (often out of context) have come to their view from the decades, centuries even millenia of extremist views women have endured?
I find it reasonable to conclude that that is the case for some of them. I also think it's irrelevant and does not at all justify hurtful speech targeted at a gender group... but then again, I wouldn't defend MikeUSA.
All men are rapist. It was once the law that a woman had to obey her husband without question. Submit to him regardless of her own wishes. How do you define rape else then forcing sex against someones will?
So all men did that? That's a fairly bold statement to make. I don't think it's reasonable to infer from a sexist law that all men forced their wives to have sex with them against their will. Besides, the statement was present tense. I am not a rapist. I am a man. Therefore, not all men are rapists. Now that we have established the statement's falsehood (that was easy), can we agree that calling a man a rapist is offensive and hurtful? And can we then agree that it is sexist to direct offensive and hurtful speech at a person based purely on that person's gender? I'm not sure why you're defending this comment...
The marriage comment. Since we now regonize the right of a person to refuse sex even within marriage and that a woman is no longer the property of the husband, traditional marriage has indeed been abolished. It has been replaced by an entirely different version with competly different laws, just using the same name. The old was destroyed to make place for a new better more equal version.
I admit to some ignorance here, but I somehow doubt that Sheila Cronin (whoever that is) made that comment back when women were legally considered the property of men. I doubt, in those days, that an organization like NOW would have been permitted to exist. So, consequently, I find it hard to believe that she was talking about anything other than the present incarnation of marriage. Not that I'm a big fan of marriage anyway, but some people like it, and I'm fairly sure it's fully opt-in.
To kill an infant. We do this all the time, the west owns it wealth and health to the fact that women no longer drop a new kid every year. It allows for very long, expensive education and a high concentration of best food and medical care, rather then waste it on a dozen kids, most who will die because they do not get the resources they need. Why do you think Africa does so poorly? Everytime they do a bit better, they get an explosion of new people who they can't feed or educate. Birth control IS the answer. Her proposal should be seen as a way to shake things up, overkill to get people thinking about just what it means for a family that has no control over the number of children.
My gosh that is a bold statement.... to put the entire success of the modern developed world squarely on the shoulders of contraception and abortion... Forget about evolution of political and economic thought. Forget about rule of law and civilizations founded on the principles of human rights. Apparently we owe our success to contraception. Hey, I won't even deny that it has helped, but come on...
to decontaminate the planet. Again, an extreem suggestion but the counter result of the extreem in which baby girls in china are killed because they are not valued.
Wait, aren't you just trying to distract us now? Formally, I guess that'd be tu quoque fallacy or something similar, but it basically just amounts to "Hmmm... yeah, that does sound bad.... but look at this, which is also bad" What's your point exactly? It doesn't make what she said *less* bad....
Well.... I am not a physicist, but I think the main reason why you don't feel it is that every atom of your body is accelerated at roughly the same rate with weak gravitational forces. If you're accelerated in a rollercoaster, the chair exerts force on your back, your back exerts force on your neck, your neck exerts force on your skull, and your skull exerts force on your brain. The force is heavily concentrated rather than broadly distributed. Concentrating the force puts stress on your body. For example, your brain will subtly deform and compact under high acceleration in a centrifuge or rollercoaster, and you might feel sick. When free-falling, every part of the brain is accelerated more or less equally, so it maintains its physical state.
However, with a massive gravitational force, the difference in distance between one part of your body and the center of the opposing mass and another part of your body and the center of the opposing mass could result in dramatically different forces between parts of your body, causing similar stresses.
In short, I don't think this is a trait that scales without consequences.
And I could say this exact thing about "drugs". Nobody is forcing you to go out and pop 500 pills against your will.
Well, for the purposes of the analogy, by the time the drug is actually having its effect on you, your will is being chemically subverted, which we distinguish from other forms of manipulation.
Still, you're right about no one forcing you to take the drug in the first place. So why *are* they illegal? So we can protect everyone from themselves? It seems to me that control over your own mind and body should be a pretty fundamental right. And to stay a little more on topic, it also seems to me that people should be responsible for their own decisions.
I don't advocate letting companies outright lie in advertising, but letting them use manipulative techniques is better than the alternative. Should it be illegal to show an attractive woman in a beer ad? Should it be illegal to show people being happy after ordering Pizza Hut? What is being suggested here? How draconian should our legal system be?
I like a lot of what you're saying, but I think the comparison to drugs is specious. Personally I don't think there is a good case for making drugs illegal, but even if there were, I don't think it'd be the fact that they're mind-altering. Alcohol, for example, is perfectly legal. As for advertising, I agree with you that it's manipulative, but I don't see a strong case for outlawing things simply for being manipulative. I'm being manipulative if I try to convince you to give me a ride home from work. It's only shady if I'm blatantly dishonest, preventing you from making an informed decision. The FTC regulates that sort of thing in advertising. Does it do a perfect job? No, advertisers are free to use manipulative techniques (like only publishing positive reviews and allowing consumers to believe that no other reviews exist). But we have to draw a line somewhere in what should be illegal and what shouldn't, and there's a point where consumers have to be responsible for their own actions. We can't make a law so restrictive as to prevent anyone from ever being tricked.
Also Ratchet and Clank for certain sections and Folklore for pulling the souls or whatever out of enemies. Motion shake for melee in Resistance 2 was dumb, but you could still use a button, so I guess it wouldn't count as required.
Might be more for all I know. I don't own or play very many PS3 games.
Of course, I'm not anti motion controls generally. Only when they're poorly implemented, and they haven't been for the PS3 games I've played.
Is that dramatically different from the way George Kirk sacrifices himself at the beginning of the film to save his wife, child, and the rest of the escaping crew? The focus of Wrath of Khan was on the personal vendetta Khan had against Kirk and the Enterprise. It was Ahab and the whale, and his vendetta, predictably proved his undoing, but because it was a *good* character-centric action piece doesn't make it preachy and philosophy-centric like some other Trek. I would venture that the new Trek is also a good character-centric action piece.