STOP before you make another life changing UPDATE,READ THIS!

[R27377783]

OOOH, it's my turn!

Honestly, I already thought it was a bit improper for the game to say I was "selling" my kids when I get rid of them. When I get rid of troops, I am "disbanding" them.
At the same time, that does not make the top-50 list of things I object to in the game.

... also, with a headline like that, I think you were setting yourself up for a hard time.

I consider this an example of a more honest and forum appropriate response to the OP. Maybe you can see it that way but you totally don't see it as a big issue. I can construe that you perhaps have a more "compartmentalized" morality than I do concerning the issue of Eudaemon "ownership" and maybe any social/moral questions in gaming, but you don't necessarily find my premise WRONG or insane. Thats how I take your comment.

[MemoryLane]

but I also believe its an oversight

I just want to clear this bit up. It is not an oversight. Players asked for a way to sell unneeded eudaemon, and so it came to be that one could sell unneeded eudaemon. Here is the patch guide entry on the topic, that I totally forgot about until just now: http://forum.r2games.com/showthread....=1#post1490424

[Alsatia01]

I'm complaining about people being allowed to troll and question my right(and sanity) to bring it up at all.

Whom exactly is trolling this thread? Because I haven't seen anyone. Depending on your answer, I may just assume you can't handle the feintest amount of criticism to your ideas.

If I'm complaining I'm complaining about the wannabe moderators here trying to determine the fate of the discussion board itself.A moderator has even more interest and I accept that they can tell me how to post or what to post about..but these others including you Al are just being mod impersonators and are out of line.

I have not once purported to be a moderator, I have no idea where or how you made that connection.

My statements were simple, you assert X to be true, provide evidence of X. It's not that difficult, and is the accepted practice of the burden of proof found anywhere and everywhere.

I've answered your same question over and over again..just because you don't agree with or like the scope of the answer doesn't mean I didn't answer. Here I'll make it easier for you to disagree with my answer: I don't LIKE it, thats why its a problem..there are you ready to commit to disagreeing with it now do you need me to provide evidence that I don't LIKE the button?

"Why do you believe it's a problem?"

"I don't like it." - If you don't see how thats a complete failure of the question asked, we probably have no more discuss on the topic.

It would be interesting to see how many of those claiming not to "get" the correlation of "selling" Eudaemons with ownership/slavery of Eudaemons could have possibly understood what I was talking about had I not even bothered to explain WHAT I consider ethically questionable about the button.

My point, wasn't to people not understanding the correlation. My point was to your round-about way of writing.

Your suggesting exactly what I'm accusing you and others of: that you would have already understood the ethical dilemma even if I hadn't mentioned "slavery" and thus are pretending not to understand so that you can argue and troll while you understand perfectly well what I'm referring to.

Are you suggesting I'm 'trolling' this forum thread?

You have not provided any evidence or reasons why this could be a problem, despite being asked multiple times. It's that simple.

well it stopped being a silly little blooper to me after the first person called me insane and as I realized how f'd up the responses were to the comparison. Like I said before, the responses here are more horrifying than the actual in-game faux pas.

The responses made were in response to your posts. People asked you to clarify exactly what you meant, some people put in some input/information, and then you pretty much.... asserted they supported slavery in one fashion or another. All of that, was before I made my first post.

well I certainly thought it was f'd up as a feature of the game from the beginning but I also believe its an oversight so I posted it in a light hearted way

I introduced the subject lightly in the OP this does not mean I didn't take it seriously for my own part but it was a minor but initial part of my overall post.

No, you did not. Even if you did, you had the perfect opportunity to explain exactly what you meant in the posts that followed, but you didn't. You doubled down and took the vitriol up a notch.

..but these discussions? no I'm not taking them lightly. Your like that reporter that interviews someone then splices up everything to twist the whole conversation up into a character assassination. Almost all these quotes are from subsequent posts AFTER people made ridiculed and trolled the premise of the concept as if I had no sensibility or merit. You harass me about fluffing up my arguments yet you do so consistently and worse by cobbling together a hash of your target's qoutes that are used blatantly out of context of the fact that they were part of subsequent discussions supposedly ABOUT the topic and not at all just me ranting on the subject. This is the entire portion of my OP dealing with the question of enslaved Eudaemons. Most of what you qoute are the result of unpleasant conversations after the OP and shows more of my disdain for the conversations I was having themselves than the issue with the game itself

There was nothing I posted that was out of context. I was showing exactly how you were not taking the subject lightly. Please explain the 'context' of how those posts were to be taken lightly.

I can only assume you misunderstood what I was attempting to indicate with all of those quotes.

Why do you think I owe you so much attention and "evidence"concerning MY perspective, Alsatia? Your sense of entitlement must be so overblown that its ready to pop!

From the way you just used the word 'entitlement', I'm not entirely sure you understand what the word means.

This is basic logic, it has nothing to do what you or I believe we are entitled to. You assert X as true, provide evidence of it. It is that simple. I made it even easier than that and asked you why you believe it's a problem, but you still haven't done that.

as you can clearly see I didn't even actually say it "IS" slavery as some suggest I can't make the distinction between reality and simulation. Immediately following this I moved on to a suggest that in addition to the other options there could/should be a merge option. This is hardly any rant.

I didn't say, you said it 'IS' slavery. And as my post indicated, I said you -

You went on a giant rant over multiple posts comparing people and the developers to slave traders

I notice you didn't address that point at all. It's alright when you 'troll and flame', but not when other people do it?

The Rants came later as replies after you and a few others that fixated on this small passage and went on to troll and flame me personally for my observation.

Are you asserting that I'm trolling and flaming you?

Its not an opinion. Slavery is a definable concept. Therefore it can be determined definitively if this technically is a simulation of slavery. The ability to "sell" them IS a simulation of slavery because it demonstrates unequivocally that the player OWNS the Eudaemon.

It does not 'demonstrates unequivocally' that the player owns the eudaemon. I gave numerous examples of how it could be percieved a different way in an earlier post. If people can have differences of opinions on it, it's not unequivocal.

millennia of human history has already provided the kind of ******* evidence your looking for..nor would you need any elaborate explanation as to why I see it as a problem, because you'd already have a problem with it yourself and damn what "I" have to say about it anyway.

Again, I have no idea where or how you got off into this tangent. No one is arguing for slavery.

Please demonstrate how having a virtual eudaemon that follows you around, is equivalent to owning slaves. Better yet, demonstrate how any of these 'issues' have any demonstrable harm.

Allow me to be much more specific. You are asserting A is bad. For all intents and purposes, everyone agrees that A is bad. You now see B, and are saying it is/like A. I'm asking, how you see that connection.

I'm talking about B, and you're going off on a tangent about A. This is what I believe to be the disconnect.

A proper paraphrase would have stated that I the OP regard anyone who understands the implication as I've presented it, but do not agree that it's inappropriate, being a depiction or simulation of slavery without any context to justify its presentation is either (in some forms..namely in the form of its "promotion" as a subject of entertainment) pro slavery, an apologist for it (here arguing its acceptability as a simulation for mere entertainment value or facilitation of such without even the need for context.) or has an overly compartmentalized moral compass.

Already brought that up in an earlier post.

Let's say for example that we were all playing a game about slave-trading and marketing. Where the purpose of the game is to make/trade/sell/buy and otherwise profit from the slaves in some regard. While it would be ethically questionable.... would there be anything objectively, demonstrably...... wrong with it? Every study that has come out attempting to show a correlation or causation between violence in video games and actual violence has shown, that they have had no significant impact whatsoever.

Does that mean that a video game that is heavily based on the profiteering of slavery would also have no impact on actual slavery/opinions on slavery? Probably, I would presume.

If you cannot give a reason something should be changed, can you really complain if it's never changed?

And you especially more than anyone else Alsatia have consistently ignored and trifled the reality of context throughout all of your discussion any time it suits your argument to do so, as you demonstrated with above with your "greatest hits" digest of my qoutes in this discussion.

Have I? I think it would be more accurate to say you have ignored the reality of context. This is a video game, and you are comparing it to actual slavery. As I've stated before, you cheapen actual slavery with this nonsense.

being "wrong" and disagreeing doesn't make one a troll and doesn't give others leave to troll.

I agree, but I've never called you a troll. I'm not sure if you can say the same, you'll have to tell me if you were referring to me as a troll in your post.

The morality of my position has been called into question seemingly unanimously and I, being the sole representative of the original position, have determined that the morality of the opposing position doesn't even warrant serious consideration.

The morality of your position has not been called into question. You are simply making a connection others do not see.

If you would like to flesh out your position as to why you disagree with my original conclusion then I invite you to do so..but can you do so without relying on some speculative conclusions about MY personal character?

You assert X as true. I am not convinced by your assertion, therefore I remain unconvinced. I have no idea where you made the connection of 'speculative conclusion' on your character.

IF slavery itself in practice and ideally, is immoral then simulation of slavery in games/entertainment/any active or potential forms of cultural influence, without context of its immorality is or should be construed as immoral or unethical,prima facie: being an unqualified promotion of the activity/simulation of slavery.

I would probably disagree with that, sort of.

I believe slavery is inherently immoral. I do not believe depictions of slavery to be inherently immoral, although they potentially are. If depictions of slavery were always immoral, films about the atrocities of slavery would also be immoral, because they would be depicting slavery as well. Furthermore, I kind of have a libertarian-esque feel of the world, in that people (adults) can do whatever the please, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else as a result. It is thereby that I conclude even actual depictions of slavery (like the example of us playing a slavery-based game) to be amoral, until such time that they can be shown to have a demonstrable negative effect on the population.

That is essentially, how I see it for the moment.

[R27377783]

You pick apart statements, reinserting them into the discussion out of context and demanding proof ad infinitum even where an argument requires no "proof" but merely conviction. Your foremost LOGIC FAILURE is that I have to keep repeating: there doesn't have to be a scientifically qualified "PROBLEM"(you never clarify what you mean by "problem" anyway) for something to be immoral or wrong. eg "THEFT" is considered "wrong" even if noone is killed or injured, and the stolen goods get used in the same way they would have been had they not been stolen. It can be considered immoral even if the only problem is the people who were not "entitled" to use it are using it.
The typical moral "problem" with theft is that its antisocial to the victims and the integrity of the society that "entitled" them to the property.
You expect me to qualify your ideology of what constitutes a "problem" by forwarding a definitive "proof" from MY argument. I have already demonstrated how its "a problem" to ME. You don't accept it as sufficient because
A) you completely disqualify the human factor of social moral psychological REACTION unless (I can presume based on your demands) a "study" qualifies those reactions with a population of numbers ie its not enough if only one person is "harmed", a large number of people will have already had to be "harmed" before its even considered.. nevermind that things can be LOGICALLY construed as harmful without anyone ever actually getting hurt.
B) you rigidly impose YOUR as yet untold definition of "problem" over MY reaction(as if MY reaction must meet the requirements of YOUR reaction to warrant examination) You want me to make a definitive and therefore limiting argument, and you wont accept that in MY opinion there is NO LIMIT to the amount of or nature of "problems" that normalization of slavery in any medium can produce. Nor do you accept or address the argument that for my view, POTENTIAL problems are enough impetus to justify the change of an unnecessary element of a game. Nor do you recognize the subjectivity of the word "problem" that I demonstrated when I wrote in so many words "its a problem because: I don't like it." Your idealization of "problem" is too linear, and based on your demands in this discussion relating to both the subjects of slavery and cultural influence(of games), is too narrow to qualify by providing you a distinctive argument. If you feel my arguments are insufficient then attack them for their existing insufficiency, don't pester me to tailor them to suit your tastes.

Whom exactly is trolling this thread? Because I haven't seen anyone. Depending on your answer, I may just assume you can't handle the feintest amount of criticism to your ideas.

1. the criticism has not been "faint" (a subjective reaction anyway) even since before I began to reply to the remarks.
2. I need not go back and retrieve names you've already gone over the thread to see for yourself who has trolled here. If you don't believe there has been trolling. Either our definitions of trolling are different and/or your discernment of trolling is, like your discernment of "problematic", too narrow for my tastes making further discourse of that subject unproductive to the scope of this thread.

I have not once purported to be a moderator, I have no idea where or how you made that connection.

You didn't need to claim it. I have construed your behaviors as the appearance of such: Demanding style changes to my posts,attempting by demand to limit and define what constitutes my right to post, and what topics and perspectives are appropriate for the forum and this thread although you are neither the OP or a moderator.

My statements were simple, you assert X to be true, provide evidence of X. It's not that difficult, and is the accepted practice of the burden of proof found anywhere and everywhere.

the practice of burdening proof is not appropriate for every discussion. certainly not this one.

My point, wasn't to people not understanding the correlation. My point was to your round-about way of writing.

your perception may be too narrow and linear. You don't even seem to see how your example rewrite relates to my response.

Are you suggesting I'm 'trolling' this forum thread?

Despite your obvious commitment to getting an as yet undeclared point across, and your extensive use of argumentation tactics that are atypical of a troll, my jury is "still out" concerning your over all intentions on this thread.

You have not provided any evidence or reasons why this could be a problem, despite being asked multiple times. It's that simple.

I have. The "evidence" is prima facie via the word on the button. I have clarified the reason its a "problem", to me, although imo the reason is also prima facie becaase of the inherently immoral nature of the logical inference. You have yet to counter my observation/conclusion with any of your "facts." Just because you choose to ignore them and continue to character assassinate by claiming I do not support my argument doesn't mean that I haven't provided a pretext for my arguments. IF they are not sufficient to you, then simply disagree.eg you don't believe that depictions or simulations of slavery need to possess a context indicating its immorality to avoid being construed as a normalization or apologetic of slavery. In fact I even expanded my position to make the moral distinction between mistreatment of slaves and slavery itself as an ideal. Whereby I claim that these are immoral for separate and distinct though(I'll add) often convergent reasons. Because slavery is unethical, morally there is no "GOOD" master, not even a "virtual" one. This is a moral/logical argument stop calling for "proof" to support it. How many times do I have to REPEAT this before you counter or accept it? Don't continue to claim I have not supported or attempted to support my arguments.

The responses made were in response to your posts. People asked you to clarify exactly what you meant, some people put in some input/information, and then you pretty much.... asserted they supported slavery in one fashion or another. All of that, was before I made my first post.

WRONG, YOU are the only one who has demanded me to clarify my argument and its still inappropriate to the nature of my argument. In fact the "I don't care because its a game" rebuttals are more appropriate counters to my argument than yours because they at least attempt to obviate the value or morality in gaming. You seem unwilling to adopt the immoral position, but still try to justify it by saying I haven't "proven" that its immoral and now you've shifted again claim not even being able to see the connection between the word "sell" on the button and simulation of slavery. You have made one arguable rebuttal to my conclusions, joining the "its just a game camp" with addendum that: claiming a game immorally depicts slavery is trivializing the immorality of slavery. I have already addressed this argument by claiming slavery is wrong as an ideal as well as in fact of matter(and as of your latest reply you have agreed thus in your position summary,) by my argument the mistreatment of slaves(or ANYONE in the ways that slaves tend to be mistreated) is inhumane regardless of the pretexts...a simulation of slavery..being inherently immoral..can also be immoral even without depicting mistreatment. I have characterized THAT immorality as beginning with those that are not qualified by any context whatsoever making them "normalizations" of the concept/practice of slavery. Further examination of any particular context may still disqualify some that might carry context but that's subjective to reviews. Those having 0 context require no subjective reviews and are therefore immoral prima facie by their unnecessary/frivolous inclusion therefore must be construed as a normalization/propagation of the practice of slavery because they conveying no implication of controversy,condemnation, or suggest any examination of the concept.

There was nothing I posted that was out of context. I was showing exactly how you were not taking the subject lightly. Please explain the 'context' of how those posts were to be taken lightly.

Your rebuttal there was in response to my claim that I posted lightheartedly and with what I considered comic relief in the Original Post..therefore the qoutes from replies are out of context and inappropriate. I have been able to discern you are here to argue with ME, NOT discuss the TOPIC although you are perfectly willing to do so in order to argue with me.Thats why I say: the jury is still out about your intentions here. It may be narcissistic of me to say this and I'd say lately you have indeed taken great interest in the topic itself..but I'm convinced its because you have sold many Eudaemons and interpret my conclusions as somehow a direct accusation that YOU are a ruthless slave master.

From the way you just used the word 'entitlement', I'm not entirely sure you understand what the word means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement
I shouldn't have to clarify this but: You make demands from me and my argument, as if you are entitled to a discourse from me until you are unilaterally satisfied. Instead of just attacking them as they are.

I notice you didn't address that point at all. It's alright when you 'troll and flame', but not when other people do it?

I accuse the game devs of making an error in choice of wording. I did not claim they are slavers. The players are made into slave masters(whether they support it or not) in the game by this error. Thats the extent of my observation of the logical effect of the error itself. Other conclusions are coming from the discussion and reactions to the error once brought into question. Quite frankly I don't care who agrees or disagrees with me on any of this it won't change any of the conclusions I've made. As far as I'm concerned noone should need to "argue" their way into or out of supporting or condemning this manifestation of slavery. You either support changing the button or you don't theres really no need to justify your position to me or the community as far as I'm concerned.
maybe you need to provide a (COMPLETE)citation where I did what you claim. In any case its not vitriol if its supported by your own arguments.

It does not 'demonstrates unequivocally' that the player owns the eudaemon. I gave numerous examples of how it could be percieved a different way in an earlier post. If people can have differences of opinions on it, it's not unequivocal.

Please cite any examples you provided that are equal or better implications than the most logical: "sale" of Eudamons implies "ownership" of them.

Allow me to be much more specific. You are asserting A is bad. For all intents and purposes, everyone agrees that A is bad. You now see B, and are saying it is/like A.

A is bad both in fact of matter and as an ideal. B is an immaterial simulation of A. B, while immaterial, is still ideologically bad.

This is a video game, and you are comparing it to actual slavery. As I've stated before, you cheapen actual slavery with this nonsense.

You cheapen actual slavery by confining it within your limited and narrow definitions and total obviation of its culturally poisonous natures. You also cheapen the value of video gaming and its cultures. Games are and always have been an integral aspect of human socialization.

I would probably disagree with that, sort of.

I believe slavery is inherently immoral. I do not believe depictions of slavery to be inherently immoral, although they potentially are. If depictions of slavery were always immoral, films about the atrocities of slavery would also be immoral, because they would be depicting slavery as well. Furthermore, I kind of have a libertarian-esque feel of the world, in that people (adults) can do whatever the please, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else as a result. It is thereby that I conclude even actual depictions of slavery (like the example of us playing a slavery-based game) to be amoral, until such time that they can be shown to have a demonstrable negative effect on the population.

That is essentially, how I see it for the moment.

I would honor my "no rebuttal" promise here and consider this debate ended..except that I MUST point out that: "effects on populations" can be negative even if "noone ever notices" ie they have not or cannot "be demonstrated" in a laboratory(so to speak) to have had any consequence. Therefore a POTENTIAL danger can logically be sufficient cause to declare a frivolous risk of harm unacceptable. With regard to your call for "demonstrable harm" as if the moral equation does not stand to reason alone..Rather than indulge your strategy with research, which I would consider a deflection of the morality considerations, IF I were to counter your logic I would only need rely on the POTENTIAL for harm as weighed against the total lack of necessity for the button or its features.
YOU might have a better chance of seeing some of my points if you ask yourself WHY you believe slavery to be "inherently immoral"...: Firstly if "harm" is the qualification for immorality then nothing can be "inherently" immoral. "Harm" is always subjective therefore immorality is always going to be subjective under such a paradigm. Therefore in your world view slavery, as well as anything else, can only be "consequently" immoral not "inherently" immoral. Nothing could be "logically" construed as undesirable, only those things that have "proven" to be "harmful" can be outcast as undesirable.
So WHY is it wrong? Is it because everybody says so? or because slaves often get mistreated(maybe slavery is okay as long as they are treated well) Either of those would mean that slavery is NOT inherently immoral. But is it wrong because its an immoral concept to be able to OWN another person...(and therefore also immoral to depict, through entertainment, casual and inconsequential ownership of "persons" without even any context. )
or is it something else entirely that makes slavery "inherently" immoral? Ask yourself this question,answer it honestly.

[R27377783]

I just want to clear this bit up. It is not an oversight. Players asked for a way to sell unneeded eudaemon, and so it came to be that one could sell unneeded eudaemon. Here is the patch guide entry on the topic, that I totally forgot about until just now: http://forum.r2games.com/showthread....=1#post1490424

I didn't mean to imply that the use of the word sell was unintentional, but I think what is unintentional is the implication that it is a simulation of slavery. In other words: in order to sell them they must first "own" them. Though I do not support the button and believe it should be changed, I'll throw my own bone to the opposition: It could have been argued that the inference is NOT that of the player's "character" is owning the Eudaemon as an entity that coexists with it in the game world, but its a literal interpretive of the "PLAYER'S" ownership of Eudaemon like everything in their game account including their own "toon"(though it cannot be sold or transferred rightfully.) In that way its not exactly a simulation of slavery. I'm sure this is how the feature was generally conceived and how its generally seen. Although I find it a highly "apologetic" explanation to justify continuing the button its probably the most accurate. Its my ideal that there should be as much as possible a seamless personal continuity between the player and their toons interaction with its environment..and its unrealistic to expect even a nearly perfect immersive interface, I find the use of the word "sell" has too high an implication value upon the behavior of the toon and its relationship with Eudaemon's to be justified as a mere functional feature to my taste. As far as I'm concerned there still is no reasonable way to remove any unwanted Eudaemons from my roster. Thank you for sharing the info.

[MemoryLane]

I didn't mean to imply that the use of the word sell was unintentional, but I think what is unintentional is the implication that it is a simulation of slavery. In other words: in order to sell them they must first "own" them. Though I do not support the button and believe it should be changed, I'll throw my own bone to the opposition: It could have been argued that the inference is NOT that of the player's "character" is owning the Eudaemon as an entity that coexists with it in the game world, but its a literal interpretive of the "PLAYER'S" ownership of Eudaemon like everything in their game account including their own "toon"(though it cannot be sold or transferred rightfully.) In that way its not exactly a simulation of slavery. I'm sure this is how the feature was generally conceived and how its generally seen. Although I find it a highly "apologetic" explanation to justify continuing the button its probably the most accurate. Its my ideal that there should be as much as possible a seamless personal continuity between the player and their toons interaction with its environment..and its unrealistic to expect even a nearly perfect immersive interface, I find the use of the word "sell" has too high an implication value upon the behavior of the toon and its relationship with Eudaemon's to be justified as a mere functional feature to my taste. As far as I'm concerned there still is no reasonable way to remove any unwanted Eudaemons from my roster. Thank you for sharing the info.

You are right. Someone coming to the conclusion that the selling of eudaemon is a simulation of slavery is unintentional. I'd like you to think of it more like selling a pet. People sell pets all the time, for a variety of reasons, and no one calls out pet owners as slave owners. Eudaemon are more like pets than people.

There just isn't another word that fits in the button and describes the action performed when the button is clicked that is easily understood by everyone. We could continue to go through the thesaurus to find what would be in your opinion an adequate replacement for the word sell, but it would still mean the same exact thing. At the end of the day, you're still letting go of a eudaemon and getting something in return no matter what that button says.

[Alsatia01]

You expect me to qualify your ideology of what constitutes a "problem" by forwarding a definitive "proof" from MY argument. I have already demonstrated how its "a problem" to ME. You don't accept it as sufficient because

I didn't ask you for proof of anything.

A) you completely disqualify the human factor of social moral psychological REACTION unless a "study" qualifies those reactions with a population of numbers ie its not enough if only one person is "harmed
nevermind that things can be LOGICALLY construed as harmful

I don't know where you got the idea that I asked for a study, or proof. I asked for evidence originally, and I retracted that request for a simple reason why you believed it could be harmful, and you responded with "I don't like it."; which isn't a reason.

The problem with 'construing' anything, is that it's construed.

B) you rigidly impose YOUR as yet untold definition of "problem"

Yes, it's a 'rigidly untold definition'.... like the one I asked on the very first post? Or my last post?

how any of these 'issues' have any demonstrable harm

until such time that they can be shown to have a demonstrable negative effect on the population.

You believe those extremely vague statements, me asking you for any harm that they could provide, is rigid? When you fail to understand two out of the three words in 'rigidly untold definition'..... I think that says it all.

You want me to make a definitive and therefore limiting argument, and you wont accept that in MY opinion there is NO LIMIT to the amount of or nature of "problems" that normalization of slavery in any medium can produce.

I have no idea how you managed to conclude that defining an argument somehow limits it. What's even more interesting, is by that statement you are saying that having an indefinite argument is somehow a good thing?

Nor do you accept or address the argument that for my view, POTENTIAL problems are enough impetus to justify the change of an unnecessary element of a game. Nor do you recognize the subjectivity of the word "problem" that I demonstrated when I wrote in so many words "its a problem because: I don't like it." Your idealization of "problem" is too linear

I could admit that for this context my 'idealization of a problem' may be too linear. Your idealization of a problem however, is far too vague.

The problem with saying X is a 'potential problem', is that everything is potentially a problem.

1. the criticism has not been "faint" (a subjective reaction anyway) even since before I began to reply to the remarks.

To be fair, that's a subjective assessment as well though. I like to think I haven't been vitriolic in my communications with you. Perhaps that's also my subjectivity. You'd have to tell me.

You didn't need to claim it. I have construed your behaviors as the appearance of such: Demanding style changes to my posts

Suggesting a style change in hopes of making a more productive thread. Suggest, is literally one of the words I used.

attempting by demand to limit and define what constitutes my right to post

None of us have a 'right' to post first off, the mods could ban us all and there's nothing we could do about it.

Secondly, asking why you believe what you believe, is not the same as demanding anything.

and what topics and perspectives are appropriate for the forum and this thread although you are neither the OP or a moderator.

If you want to get technical, your OP was against the forum rules. It is by MemoryLane's grace that they have allowed it to be posted, and stay posted.

the practice of burdening proof is not appropriate for every discussion. certainly not this one.

I agree that the burden of proof is not appropriate for every discussion. I do however, believe it is necessary here. It's your post and ideas however, if you do not wish to take the post forward with credence, that is your prerogative.

Despite your obvious commitment to getting an as yet undeclared point across, and your extensive use of argumentation tactics that are atypical of a troll, my jury is "still out" concerning your over all intentions on this thread.

I was, and still am, merely asking for something more..... substantive when it comes to this topic. I've seen a similar argument made elsewhere, and I was kind of hoping there would be more to it than just your opinion.

I have. The "evidence" is prima facie via the word on the button.

Well there are a few different.... ways to interpret that, and I have no desire to put words into your mouth.

Prima Facie - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

It is thereby that I occasionally/often regard prima facie arguments inherently dishonest via argument from ignorance.

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam - It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.

You would have to go into more detail, if you were so inclined.

I have clarified the reason its a "problem", to me, although imo the reason is also prima facie becaase of the inherently immoral nature of the logical inference. You have yet to counter my observation/conclusion with any of your "facts."

I don't have to counter your observation or conclusion, you have to demonstrate your observation or conclusion.

Just because you choose to ignore them and continue to character assassinate by claiming I do not support my argument doesn't mean that I haven't provided a pretext for my arguments.

Citation.

eg you don't believe that depictions or simulations of slavery need to possess a context indicating its immorality to avoid being construed as a normalization or apologetic of slavery.

No I generally don't consider that depictions of slavery need to possess a context indicating its immorality. I suppose I could be convinced, however.

In fact I even expanded my position to make the moral distinction between mistreatment of slaves and slavery itself as an ideal. Whereby I claim that these are immoral for separate and distinct though(I'll add) often convergent reasons. Because slavery is unethical, morally there is no "GOOD" master, not even a "virtual" one.

I agree. However the distinction I was making, is how you equated the eudaemon with slavery, or even a depiction of slavery. It is simply a connection I have not made. You apparently have, so I suppose there's nothing more to discuss on that.

This is a moral/logical argument stop calling for "proof" to support it. How many times do I have to REPEAT this before you counter or accept it? Don't continue to claim I have not supported or attempted to support my arguments.

I never once asked for proof, I asked for evidence. You apparently don't know the difference. I even took it a step back from that, and asked simply how you believe it could be a problem. Furthermore, logical arguments do require proof, that's what makes them logical.

On the moral argument, you have just made a connection I don't see. As I said before, there's probably no more need to discuss it.

WRONG, YOU are the only one who has demanded me to clarify my argument and its still inappropriate to the nature of my argument.

Demand is a very strong word.

In fact the "I don't care because its a game" rebuttals are more appropriate counters to my argument than yours because they at least attempt to obviate the value or morality in gaming. You seem unwilling to adopt the immoral position, but still try to justify it by saying I haven't "proven" that its immoral and now you've shifted again claim not even being able to see the connection between the word "sell" on the button and simulation of slavery.

Uh, no. As far as I'm concerned it's amoral, and you have not demonstrated it to be immoral, so I remain unconvinced of its immorality or morality.

You have made one arguable rebuttal to my conclusions, joining the "its just a game camp" with addendum that: claiming a game immorally depicts slavery is trivializing the immorality of slavery.

Well in a way you agree as well. You said yourself that varying depictions of slavery have different levels of obscenity. Even if I agreed to your assertion, the '12 years a slave' example would be a 6 or 7/10 on the 'scale of egregious/obscene' scale, whereas the 'sell button on the eudaemon' would be a .00000000001/10.

I also tend to reject the notion that depictions will 'trivialize the immorality of slavery'. Perhaps that's my subjectivity, but I don't think I could even find someone who is pro-slavery in this day and age. There are still slaves and slavers in the world, so I suppose if I looked hard enough I could eventually find some. However I believe it's going to be an uphill battle convincing anyone that this depiction of slavery somehow contributes to the increase of slaves in the world. But I digress.

I have already addressed this argument by claiming slavery is wrong as an ideal as well as in fact of matter(and as of your latest reply you have agreed thus in your position summary,) by my argument the mistreatment of slaves(or ANYONE in the ways that slaves tend to be mistreated) is inhumane regardless of the pretexts...a simulation of slavery..being inherently immoral..can also be immoral even without depicting mistreatment.

I'm not sure I would necessarily agree with that.

I have characterized THAT immorality as beginning with those that are not qualified by any context whatsoever making them "normalizations" of the concept/practice of slavery. Further examination of any particular context may still disqualify some that might carry context but that's subjective to reviews. Those having 0 context require no subjective reviews and are therefore immoral prima facie by their unnecessary/frivolous inclusion therefore must be construed as a normalization/propagation of the practice of slavery because they conveying no implication of controversy,condemnation, or suggest any examination of the concept.

I can't agree with that. No context so you just assume it was an attempt to normalization or propagation. With no context, I wouldn't assume anything.

I have been able to discern you are here to argue with ME, NOT discuss the TOPIC although you are perfectly willing to do so in order to argue with me.Thats why I say: the jury is still out about your intentions here.

Not everything is about you, you know. I've asked you questions about what you believe, and made statements about what I see as flaws or problems in your logic. I haven't once attacked your character, despite your assertions to the contrary.

I shouldn't have to clarify this but: You make demands from me and my argument, as if you are entitled to a discourse from me until you are unilaterally satisfied. Instead of just attacking them as they are.

I've made no demands of you. I've asked what you believe and why you believe it, that's it. The only explanation you have given is essentially - "I just do.", which I have rejected for the aforementioned reasons.

Please cite any examples you provided that are equal or better implications than the most logical: "sale" of Eudamons implies "ownership" of them.

The relationship could be more similar to a sports team, where players are..... sold.... to other teams. It could be like many careers around the world, where employers sell employee's and their contracts off to other companies. There is no context for what happens to the eudaemon after you sell them

What I posted isn't exactly a 'better' implication, and I believe one or two other people also posted a feasible example for why it could say 'sell'. As I understand you rejected all of those reasons outright. But like you said, there's little to no context on the button.

A is bad both in fact of matter and as an ideal. B is an immaterial simulation of A. B, while immaterial, is still ideologically bad.

The only thing I would say here, is that B isn't necessarily ideologically bad.

You cheapen actual slavery by confining it within your limited and narrow definitions and total obviation of its culturally poisonous natures.

I think you have that backwards.

"effects on populations" can be negative even if "noone ever notices" ie they have not or cannot "be demonstrated" in a laboratory(so to speak) to have had any consequence. Therefore a POTENTIAL danger can logically be sufficient cause to declare a frivolous risk of harm unacceptable.

If they manifest in reality, they can be demonstrated in one form or another. Admittedly, some things will not be as easy to demonstrate as others. However that does not give anyone the right to start doing away with things under the guise of 'potential harm'.

With regard to your call for "demonstrable harm" as if the moral equation does not stand to reason alone..
IF I were to counter your logic I would only need rely on the POTENTIAL for harm as weighed against the total lack of necessity for the button or its features.

Except that you can't demonstrate any potential harm. You can't even give an example of what kinds of potential harm could potentially derive from it.

YOU might have a better chance of seeing some of my points if you ask yourself WHY you believe slavery to be "inherently immoral"

Well we can really get into the topic of slavery itself if you so choose. But I do not believe depictions of slavery to be necessarily immoral, for the reason I enumerated in my previous post.

[Alsatia01]

You are right. Someone coming to the conclusion that the selling of eudaemon is a simulation of slavery is unintentional. I'd like you to think of it more like selling a pet. People sell pets all the time, for a variety of reasons, and no one calls out pet owners as slave owners. Eudaemon are more like pets than people.

There just isn't another word that fits in the button and describes the action performed when the button is clicked that is easily understood by everyone. We could continue to go through the thesaurus to find what would be in your opinion an adequate replacement for the word sell, but it would still mean the same exact thing. At the end of the day, you're still letting go of a eudaemon and getting something in return no matter what that button says.

You're gonna get some pretty heavy flak for that. Lol

[AdaJames]

The RSPCA called. They want their whipping girl back!

[demoniced]

sylph i call my pets and eud are my little kids

hate that we can sacrifice pet .. and not stuff it to put it onto a shelf
hate that we can sell kids .. i want a ritual suicide by beheading just like in old days to please the gods .. heads should be rolling from a piramide with bloodspatters on screen each time neck face towards it and pile up on bottom .. as the inbreed patrol just gives birth to to many

.. if u have problem with the very way i name my stuff .. not urs .. go cry at the purple sky on the blue grass whilst playing with ur little ego toy under that pink tree ..

[R27377783]

"I don't like it.";

sure it is. you devalue my opinion/reaction on what basis? I have just as much right to express my preferences in the suggestion forum as you do. If I suggested a font color change because I don't like the color and enough players agreed the color sucks, based on MemoryLane's info we could expect the devs to consider it. Even if there were NO other epic world impacting "reasons" beyond our color preference.

You believe those extremely vague statements, me asking you for any harm that they could provide, is rigid? When you fail to understand two out of the three words in 'rigidly untold definition'.

well explain what you mean by "harm" then, YOU inserted that criteria. In my OP I never mentioned anything about it being "harmful" I said "unethical". Unless your saying for something to be unethical it needs to be actually harmful, which I don't agree with.

I have no idea how you managed to conclude that defining an argument somehow limits it. What's even more interesting, is by that statement you are saying that having an indefinite argument is somehow a good thing?

Defining ANYTHING is potentially limiting it. Its the essence of definition. Its also a paradox because by defining it you give it existence/reality. Philosophy 101. AND yes for arguments sake being undefined can be a good thing. especially if If not interested in "arguing" something I don't consider arguable. In any case I don't see why I should validate your limiting criteria by canning an argument for it, and if I wanted too I couldn't because you haven't defined your criteria for what constitutes the level and nature of "harm" you feel is required to justify raising the objection. Don't you see that we already disagree on that point? I feel that any objection is justified as a topic for discussion at least as far as the OP is concerned as long as it is related to something going on in with the game. You seem to feel that its only justified to discuss if its "harmful" to society or something.

...asking why you believe what you believe, is not the same as demanding anything.

You asked, I refused to indulge you or elaborate any further than making the correlation to the word on the button and the unethical behavior, then you demanded it, and character assassinate me when I refused to satisfy your argumentative preference. So I consider that demanding.

If you want to get technical, your OP was against the forum rules. It is by MemoryLane's grace that they have allowed it to be posted, and stay posted.

Go ahead and explain this one. How was my OP against the forum rules? Please give a citation or at least an example if you will.

Prima Facie - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

I don't have to counter your observation or conclusion, you have to demonstrate your observation or conclusion.

I did that in the OP. I explained my objection and made the correlation that I found objectionable/unethical. At the time I Did not realize I would have to explain the finer nuance of my logic that being without context and likely unintentional its not a morally sound depiction simulation of slavery. When I did realize there was a dissonance I tried to explain the difference between a morally qualifiable depiction and an unqualified one without any context. I tried to explain how, without any pre or context, putting a depiction or simulation of a morally objectionable activity in a game is only a continuation/propagation/normalization of the practice or concept. This I believe is what you disagree with in my argument..but it seems like you don't realize it or something so your asking for more to disagree with. IF your watching an anime about romance and in the middle of it for no apparent reason suddenly every character in the movie is given a slave person to sell at a fair and they do so without any kind of discussion or objection and the plot simply continues as if nothing happened. The producers have introduced an immoral behavior into the fictional society and not provided ant pre- or context as to why they have done this. The viewer who has never heard anything good or bad about slavery is left to consider that it must be normal in that society to hold and sell people as slaves. Without any real world education about the subject its perfectly reasonable to expect that some viewers will have to consider slavery to be an acceptable paradigm in the real world or at least in the minds of the producers of that anime. If they have any natural moral ideals for or against the concept of slavery would be the only way to expect any objection form such viewers. Other viewers who do have an idea of the moral status of slavery may or may not object on those principles but in either case the moral context was not offered by the anime. Therefore their depiction instituted slavery as a normalized/neutralized concept. Even if they also depicted an uprising against the concept of enslavement in the film the default viewer would have to be expected to consider that there are some people in that fictional world and possibly in the real world who denounce the concept of slavery for some reason. THAT is an example of providing context.
My call for depictions to provide context is not Altogether different from your call for me to provide definitive argumentation to my rationale. You seem to feel that my opinion is unqualified if I do not explain how I think its "problematic" to include slavery in the game without context. Though not in the OP(I simply didn't think it would be necessary), since then I have tried to argue that, "problematic" or not, its unethical/immoral to do so incidentally/without context because its "normalization". Similarly I think your suggesting that the status of the circumstances I've pointed out are neutral without argument or "demonstrable harm", I think depicting the immoral behavior without context indicating that it is or could be considered immoral is a suggestion by the producers/devs that its default social status is neutral or can exist without "demonstrable harm" ..the idea that slavery has a default status of neutral is a logic that I disagree with entirely on logical/moral grounds.

Furthermore, logical arguments do require proof, that's what makes them logical.

Its what I've been saying. nor they do require consensus or even argument to be considered arguable.

Well in a way you agree as well. You said yourself that varying depictions of slavery have different levels of obscenity. Even if I agreed to your assertion, the '12 years a slave' example would be a 6 or 7/10 on the 'scale of egregious/obscene' scale, whereas the 'sell button on the eudaemon' would be a .00000000001/10.

perhaps it depensd on the criterias being used. If my objection hinges on the concept/depiction of a system where it is socially acceptable to own/sell persons as being the most reprehensible aspect of slavery itself, (NOT the proprietary mistreatment of persons,or illegal abduction of persons) then the two become much more closer in objectionable value. Although in that movie "12 years a Slave" the depiction wasn't even simply about the injustice of slavery but also the related injustices caused by the tradition of slavery on the society to the extent that a person who is not even lawfully considered part of the slave class was taken into bondage for a significant portion of their life and never even freed on the merit of their original status as a free citizen.

I can't agree with that. No context so you just assume it was an attempt to normalization or propagation. With no context, I wouldn't assume anything.

no context means the default status of the concept is prevalent. The "current" default status of the concept of slavery is immoral. I didn't say this is an "attempt" at normalization. That would be me accusing someone from the devs as doing it purposefully. Although I have no way of knowing how true that could be, I don't find it likely. I'm saying it IS a resultant "normalization" if there is no further context to suggest it is abnormal,unethical or even notable. Even if there was context suggesting that slavery is the preferred system in that fictional world that at least provides obvious context and allows the typical user an opportunity to judge the social development of the fictional slave society(and the morality of its developers) and their role in it. Making it simply a button is potentially more insidious toward the cultures(devs and players) that value the game than developing a full and obvious slavery system in the game.

I've made no demands of you. I've asked what you believe and why you believe it, that's it. The only explanation you have given is essentially - "I just do.", which I have rejected for the aforementioned reasons.

it isn't the only argument I've provided its just the simplest and the latest. Its the one that demonstrates how essential I think your request is to the discussion.

The only thing I would say here, is that B isn't necessarily ideologically bad.

Only though context could B POTENTIALLY not inherit the ideological "bad" from A.

If they manifest in reality, they can be demonstrated in one form or another. Admittedly, some things will not be as easy to demonstrate as others. However that does not give anyone the right to start doing away with things under the guise of 'potential harm'.

It has and does everyday on every scale of life.

Except that you can't demonstrate any potential harm. You can't even give an example of what kinds of potential harm could potentially derive from it.
Well we can really get into the topic of slavery itself if you so choose. But I do not believe depictions of slavery to be necessarily immoral, for the reason I enumerated in my previous post.

You forgot to add that I haven't even excepted your assertion that there is a need for me or anyone to "demonstrate any potential harm" here in this discussion. The subjects are widely known. The underlying morality regarding WHAT has been implication is apparently unquestioned. The only question seems to be the merit of the implication..THAT question I find to be a red herring, and or indicative of the moral development of the respondents who hold harbor uncertainty. Do you understand that statement now when I put it that way? This entire discourse is morally beneath me. The only reason I indulge you in it is because how your doing it is confusing and objectionable. I'm not always sure if you are only being argumentative again or you truly just don't see the point of why I refuse to "enlighten" you on the intricacies of my perspective. Its not even clear to me why you'd be interested in my perspective on the subject of what makes a depiction of slavery harmful or not. The only thing I'm sure about with this discussion I'm having with you is that: I am unwilling and find it unnecessary to discuss the points and woes of slavery in ANY society with you or anyone, especially on this forum.

[R27377783]

You are right. Someone coming to the conclusion that the selling of eudaemon is a simulation of slavery is unintentional. I'd like you to think of it more like selling a pet. People sell pets all the time, for a variety of reasons, and no one calls out pet owners as slave owners. Eudaemon are more like pets than people.

There just isn't another word that fits in the button and describes the action performed when the button is clicked that is easily understood by everyone. We could continue to go through the thesaurus to find what would be in your opinion an adequate replacement for the word sell, but it would still mean the same exact thing. At the end of the day, you're still letting go of a eudaemon and getting something in return no matter what that button says.

I will NOT think of them as "pets" and doing so would not really satisfy me anyway becuase they do not at all resemble what I consider to be "pets" (nor do I wholly support the concept of owning/selling pets irl either)...but because of the efforts of some this post's respondents I can think of them as "genies." Which doesn't exactly explain the "sell" button without any reference to selling their "lamp" but it does give more them a more commonly acceptable "master/slave" dynamic for me.
What I find more manageable though is acknowledging the likelihood that there is no word both small and prolific enough for their tastes that achieves what you have outlined to be the dev's intentions for this feature (to convey the prospect of losing /exchanging the Eudaemon while also getting something in return.) I find it thoroughly unacceptable that devs might prioritize the communication of these two elements in one word/button over the perception that they are (inadvertently or otherwise) promoting the concept of slavery, but I can accept that its not any of our call to make in this forum. Its my opinion that conveying the fact that the player will lose the Eudaemon is more a priority, than that they will get anything back.(The game can give something back to the player whether they know it beforehand or not. Losing the Eudaemon unexpectedly would cause more outrage. The fact that I've had to come to terms with is on the premise of my arguments: The need to get something in return at all for deleting the Eudaemon from our rosters is in fact more morally disturbing than what the button is saying, I have had to accept my hypocrisy on that matter since my only objection was for CALLING it a sale. Though it could be argued that changing the word on the button could effect the context and perhaps negate the implication of slavery..but it sounds like noone believes it necessary nor that devs will choose to reconsider their priorities on this matter. I can accept that, as far as this conversation is concerned, since it doesn't necessarily imply that I had no business ever trying to raise the issue, as some respondents would have me believe.

[R274038]

idiots in R2 made the game cashers verse non cashers tattoo system been doing since started way it is been years before i have knighthood FU game devs and r2 let this happen after long time getting knighthood.game became a bunch of idiot clones instead of wide range of weapons and clothing.instead of bunch of guys in dresses lol over 80%of guys playing as girls.

[Alsatia01]

I have just as much right to express my preferences in the suggestion forum as you do. If I suggested a font color change because I don't like the color and enough players agreed the color sucks, based on MemoryLane's info we could expect the devs to consider it. Even if there were NO other epic world impacting "reasons" beyond our color preference.

Historically, you've been inserting more than just your opinion into the discussion. If that's all it boils down to, then fair enough. The only point I would make there, is that given R2/7roads 'management' style, we probably won't ever see a change.

well explain what you mean by "harm" then, YOU inserted that criteria. In my OP I never mentioned anything about it being "harmful" I said "unethical". Unless your saying for something to be unethical it needs to be actually harmful, which I don't agree with.

Things that are unethical can be shown to be harmful in a general sense. I was using an extremely vague definition of 'harm', such to give the argument as much leeway as possible.

Defining ANYTHING is potentially limiting it. Its the essence of definition. Its also a paradox because by defining it you give it existence/reality. Philosophy 101. AND yes for arguments sake being undefined can be a good thing.

The problem with not defining an argument, is that your argument can become unfalsifiable. It can potentially become a 'moving the goalpost' fallacy.

especially if If not interested in "arguing" something I don't consider arguable. In any case I don't see why I should validate your limiting criteria by canning an argument for it, and if I wanted too I couldn't because you haven't defined your criteria for what constitutes the level and nature of "harm" you feel is required to justify raising the objection. Don't you see that we already disagree on that point? I feel that any objection is justified as a topic for discussion at least as far as the OP is concerned as long as it is related to something going on in with the game. You seem to feel that its only justified to discuss if its "harmful" to society or something.

As I stated before, the definition of harm I was using was an extremely vague one, something like - causing detriment to a person or persons political, social, financial, emotional or physical well-being in any temporal sense. Probably an even vaguer definition than that, that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.

I actually find discussions on ethics and morality to be a lot more fascinating, because there is no real right ideas, just varying degrees of non-bad ideas.

You asked, I refused to indulge you or elaborate any further than making the correlation to the word on the button and the unethical behavior, then you demanded it, and character assassinate me when I refused to satisfy your argumentative preference. So I consider that demanding.

Citation.

Go ahead and explain this one. How was my OP against the forum rules? Please give a citation or at least an example if you will.

Prima Facie - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise.

How about, the forum rules?

2. There will be no discussion based on a national, political, religious, sexual or ethnic nature.

Your use of prima facie is arguably a fallacy.

Argument from ignorance - It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

I did that in the OP. I explained my objection and made the correlation that I found objectionable/unethical.

IF your watching an anime about romance and in the middle of it for no apparent reason suddenly every character in the movie is given a slave person to sell at a fair and they do so without any kind of discussion or objection and the plot simply continues as if nothing happened.

Naturally that would be immoral. The only distinction I would make here about wartune, is that the analogy doesn't apply here, in my eyes. The only thing I could say there, is that you anthropomorphize the eudaemon, and I don't.

MemoryLane sees them more as pets, I see them as.... less than that. I don't generally find depictions of anything egregious.

The producers have introduced an immoral behavior into the fictional society and not provided ant pre- or context as to why they have done this. The viewer who has never heard anything good or bad about slavery is left to consider that it must be normal in that society to hold and sell people as slaves. Without any real world education about the subject its perfectly reasonable to expect that some viewers will have to consider slavery to be an acceptable paradigm in the real world or at least in the minds of the producers of that anime.

I completely disagree. I do not believe that any type of context-free environment (or context-full) that advocates or normalizes the practice of slavery is going to cause anyone to believe, it is an acceptable paradigm. Perhaps you could make the argument that you're way more jaded than I, or that I think too highly of the general population ( there are outliers, of course), but from my eyes; you're setting a horse on fire, that has been dead and buried for centuries.

My call for depictions to provide context is not Altogether different from your call for me to provide definitive argumentation to my rationale.

Similarly I think your suggesting that the status of the circumstances I've pointed out are neutral without argument or "demonstrable harm", I think depicting the immoral behavior without context indicating that it is or could be considered immoral is a suggestion by the producers/devs that its default social status is neutral or can exist without "demonstrable harm" ..the idea that slavery has a default status of neutral is a logic that I disagree with entirely on logical/moral grounds.

The 'neutral' bit I was referring to, wasn't that slavery is neutral, but that the depiction of the eudaemon and the sell button, being a depiction of slavery, was neutral. You made the connection of them being slaves from the button, and I.... don't really see them as such.

So I was asking you how you made that connection. You have reiterated that it is merely your opinion, and you've made that connection, which is fine. I however, was under the presumption that you, as the OP, were trying to convince people into seeing it in a similar light.

Only though context could B POTENTIALLY not inherit the ideological "bad" from A.

I'm not sure about only through context, context would definitely be the most prevalent of circumstances. But I could probably agree with that in one form or another.

It has and does everyday on every scale of life.

Like what? Did you have a specific example in mind?

You forgot to add that I haven't even excepted your assertion that there is a need for me or anyone to "demonstrate any potential harm" here in this discussion.

That goes back to my presumption that you were intending to get the button changed and/or get people to see, what you see as a depiction of slavery.

The subjects are widely known. The underlying morality regarding WHAT has been implication is apparently unquestioned. The only question seems to be the merit of the implication..THAT question I find to be a red herring, and or indicative of the moral development of the respondents who hold harbor uncertainty. Do you understand that statement now when I put it that way?

Not really? You'd have to be more specific.

I'm not always sure if you are only being argumentative again or you truly just don't see the point of why I refuse to "enlighten" you on the intricacies of my perspective.

As far as I can tell, there are no intricacies of your perspective, all of this has been merely your opinion. Which is fine, it just doesn't' exactly make any of it convincing for anyone else to believe.

[MemoryLane]

I didn't say they *were* pets, I said they are *more like* pets than people. I see them as pixels, but I figured that might be upsetting to state.