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

[Alsatia01]

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.

Not sure if you are referring to me or to R27377783.

My apologies if I inaccurately quoted/paraphrased you.

I pretty much completely agree with what you're saying, though.

[R27377783]

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

...and I like it that way. sometimes this will be the most effective position. particularly when someone is trying to lure you into a narrow ambush. Anyway a "moving goal post" strategy does not automatically make a fallacy in my view. Its like when traditional generals objected that guerrilla fighting is not "real" warfare.
Digression: Argumentation does not make or break actuality. Its a tool for/of understanding...point being: a particular style of argumentation does not necessarily invalidate a position, it can perhaps invalidate a "debate" though I'd presume.
If the rationale was broad originally("It reminds me of slavery" "[I believe the button is unethical]") its not a fallacy just because I choose to keep the argument in broad terms, and not indulge in tit for tat. Really, from my perspective what I've done is avoid YOUR attempt to set up a playing field for "goal post" maneuvering. Your claim that I haven't subsequently defended my conclusion via logic and derived opinions is the fallacy and a straw diversion riddled with character assassination attempts. You can only rightfully say that I haven't tried very hard to meet your own specific standards in doing so. I readily admit this, reserve my nature born right to do so, and I've indicated why..that I feel its an unnecessary debate for anyone of reasonable learning in this modern era to come to terms with the implication, is out of scale with the OP topics, and personally distasteful for me to engage with those who would so belligerently, or smugly marginalize this issue on the basis of what kind of media its appears in or any other rationale I imagine.

How about, the forum rules?

how about outlining how anything I've posted in the OP or anywhere in this thread for that matter implicate me in violating those rules you've bolded? Where are "politics"(ecxept in outlining to others how there is no connection to such), and where is "ethnicity" referenced in any of my posts, particularly the OP.

Your use of prima facie is arguably a fallacy.

As is your arbitrary negation of it here.

Argument from ignorance - It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).[/QUOTE] as the premise of my implication is based on the highly visible operating word "sell" and the subject appears visibly to represent a personal entity and the conclusion is derived from a correlation well established in simple logic(sell = ownership) I counter that there is no way to negate the observation logically. That, plus, being admittedly a matter of perspective, means it will never be "proven false" unless the button is altered or removed. Therefore your characterization of the "Argument from Ignorance" cannot apply here.
Furthermore at no time have implied or has my argument relied on the possibility that these programmed entities in the game are alive on the planet. A simulation is an interactive depiction. A depiction of something can be egregious, and it IS here imo, not because they are being "mistreated" (I never implied such,and its not a feature of my argument that these entities need be depicted to be harmed for it to be immoral, that is the brainchild of some of the respondents here.) But because they represent personal entities being "sold" by either the player(a simple break from immersion quality of them game) or ,more insidiously, by the players toon (a, in this case context-free, simulation of slavery in the game world.) The problem as I see it is the promotion normalization of the idea of selling persons in general. What kind of persons being depicted as sold is not a factor in that implication or in its immorality. You think it matters to me what "KIND" of person they resemble as to how objectionable it is or if they are somehow being rezzed into the living world somehow? The "they're not real" argument is a "red herring", irrelevant to the implication of a conceptual/logical immorality in depicting them in the position of slaves that I have not wavered from in this discussion despite every attempt to distort the issue, whether for the sake of comedy,vitriol,or in your case, strong armed intellectual debate.

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

thats your choice. The fact that I did otherwise doesn't make my conclusion a "fallacy". Well...unless your a dev/and not considering community standing, in this case mine is as good as yours. Case in point: my conclusion only requires(by the parameters I've set for my objection) that they appear to simulate "persons" of some rational kind, and that they are being sold.

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.

Thats fine for you, yet thats not a real argument against my perspective/conclusion...in case you may have thought it was. Its speculation. Your guess is as good as mine in that observation.

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.

Actually I wasn't. Its very elementary so in the OP had no reason to suspect it would be so hard to rationalize. The simplicity of the OP is a result of that assumption. I do believe most of the arguments don't come from "a misunderstanding though" therefore they come from a divergence of values and or a need to argue with someone presenting something they don't want to acknowledge for various reasons. I don't believe for a minute that any of these respondents don't "get" the equation. Thats why my conclusive response is "F" em. You however seem to want me to "argue" with them. I'm trying to understand and or make you understand the utter pointlessness of discussing anything of serious consideration with the rank and file here. Wartune has found a solid way to "entertain the brutes" and this is their spitting zone thats what I can gather from the results of this "debate." [removed.. no good reason to indulge in caricature of individual respondents at this point though its fun for me too!]

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

nope. I'm gonna charge that off as yet another staunch opinion/trivial discussion[ in relation here].

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.

more like..get people to NOTICE the glaringly obvious.
You see I understand that people will overlook the objectionable if its either too obvious or too subtle. If its inconvenient and seems generally innocuous they're also in a hurry to avoid it and get on with their routines..and throw debris at the persons trying to get them to stop and think/do something about it. Thats pretty much what I think is going on here if its not something worse.

[Alsatia01]

...and I like it that way. sometimes this will be the most effective position.

Using a logical fallacy is not a good thing, even in this case. If what you're talking about is so vague that you literally can't define it even with vague terms, there's probably no more need to discuss it.

how about outlining how anything I've posted in the OP or anywhere in this thread for that matter implicate me in violating those rules you've bolded? Where are "politics"(ecxept in outlining to others how there is no connection to such), and where is "ethnicity" referenced in any of my posts, particularly the OP.

Every category was arguably broken under the standard of the 2nd rule. Also, the ethnicity reference was an accident, I meant to bold the 'sexuality' clause. My mistake.

I can really list examples of those things if really necessary, but more to the point - MemoryLane could have closed this thread or stopped this discussion, and has chosen not to; something I'm sure you would agree with.

As is your arbitrary negation of it here.

It's not arbitrary, that's the definition.

as the premise of my implication is based on the highly visible operating word "sell" and the subject appears visibly to represent a personal entity and the conclusion is derived from a correlation well established in simple logic(sell = ownership) I counter that there is no way to negate the observation logically.

That, plus, being admittedly a matter of perspective, means it will never be "proven false" unless the button is altered or removed. Therefore your characterization of the "Argument from Ignorance" cannot apply here.

There is not a connection between ownership and sell. You can sell things that do not belong to you, like a television you stole (as an example). There is also, no connection between selling and slavery. You can sell a business, but that doesn't make it slavery.

If a building owner has a picture of a person on the side of a building, and they sell the building, that is not the same as selling a person. You have anthropomorphized a being to specifically meet your criteria.

The problem as I see it is the promotion normalization of the idea of selling persons in general. What kind of persons being depicted as sold is not a factor in that implication or in its immorality. You think it matters to me what "KIND" of person they resemble as to how objectionable it is or if they are somehow being rezzed into the living world somehow? The "they're not real" argument is a "red herring", irrelevant to the implication of a conceptual/logical immorality in depicting them in the position of slaves that I have not wavered from in this discussion despite every attempt to distort the issue, whether for the sake of comedy,vitriol,or in your case, strong armed intellectual debate.

We can agree to disagree there. I generally don't see it as an issue.

thats your choice. The fact that I did otherwise doesn't make my conclusion a "fallacy".

I meant your use of prima facie, not the argument surrounding it.

Thats fine for you, yet thats not a real argument against my perspective/conclusion...in case you may have thought it was. Its speculation. Your guess is as good as mine in that observation.

I agree, and it was just an observation. I understand your stance/position on that particular issue, it just happens to differ from my own.

Actually I wasn't. Its very elementary so in the OP had no reason to suspect it would be so hard to rationalize. The simplicity of the OP is a result of that assumption. I do believe most of the arguments don't come from "a misunderstanding though" therefore they come from a divergence of values and or a need to argue with someone presenting something they don't want to acknowledge for various reasons. I don't believe for a minute that any of these respondents don't "get" the equation. Thats why my conclusive response is "F" em. You however seem to want me to "argue" with them. I'm trying to understand and or make you understand the utter pointlessness of discussing anything of serious consideration with the rank and file here. Wartune has found a solid way to "entertain the brutes" and this is their spitting zone thats what I can gather from the results of this "debate." [removed.. no good reason to indulge in caricature of individual respondents at this point though its fun for me too!]

That's probably a bit of a shame. In cases like this you would probably be surprised to find out that people generally don't think all that much differently than yourself. Like you said it's probably a small delineation on the hierarchy of values people have; this being, for lack of a better term - under the radar.

more like..get people to NOTICE the glaringly obvious.

That's probably more arguable, or even more likely - under the radar.

You see I understand that people will overlook the objectionable if its either too obvious or too subtle. If its inconvenient and seems generally innocuous they're also in a hurry to avoid it and get on with their routines..and throw debris at the persons trying to get them to stop and think/do something about it. Thats pretty much what I think is going on here if its not something worse.

Out of all the reasons you gave, I think that's probably the biggest factor. We can barely get R2/7Roads to fix cross server events, and you want them to change a label. I mean, objectively/difficulty speaking it would be infinitely easier to fix than some of the other issues, but everyone here is pretty much used to getting no player/customer care.

[Arlad]

big words, no substance.
thats how i view this topic.

[R27377783]

big words, no substance.
thats how i view this topic.

Thank you for your brilliant fresh perspective, and contributing your own bit of substance to the discussion. Its nice to know that theres someone else here that could do better.

[Arlad]

thank you for proving my point.

[R27377783]

Every category was arguably broken under the standard of the 2nd rule. Also, the ethnicity reference was an accident, I meant to bold the 'sexuality' clause. My mistake.

SEXUALITY?!? *** are you talking about!?! yeh your going to need to cite something here.

I can really list examples of those things if really necessary, but more to the point - MemoryLane could have closed this thread or stopped this discussion, and has chosen not to; something I'm sure you would agree with.

yes please list. Also no I don't agree. True I'm sure ML has access to the tools necessary to do this, and probably could do so without much if any oversight, being a tenured mod, but in terms of legitimacy and forum rules, no there is some expectation of integrity for a mod in my belief system, so no I don't agree.

There is not a connection between ownership and sell. You can sell things that do not belong to you, like a television you stole (as an example). There is also, no connection between selling and slavery. You can sell a business, but that doesn't make it slavery.

and you want to talk about moving goalposts..
okay REALLY?! Transferring ownership in exchange for value is just about the literal definition of "selling" something. Okay I can give you that a person could be "selling" as a go between,drop shipper or commissioned agent but you can't avoid the implication of at least one party somewhere owning the goods being exchanged and transferring that ownership to another party. In the case of theft/fencing the presumption simply unethically overrides the social entitlement of the original owner on the prospect of creating a "new" owner. IN the case of selling a business there is no real analogy to slavery there..a business is not ethically considered a person and employees are compensated,voluntary,contractual agents of a business..not slaves at all in the literal sense. Ironically if that analogy were applied to the Eudaemons by devs the player would have to remit some form of severance pay or unemployment benefit to the Eudamons to get rid of them. There is no context I know of(and I doubt you can forward any) where a person can be owned or sold..outside of the contexts of slavery/human trafficking..not even the "sale" of babies is an exception to this. I'll even go so far as to say the same applies to the historic "trading" of humans would fall under the same context in modern cultures. Spouse-swapping perhaps but I think of that as more of an expression of consensual extramarital activities.
All of that discussion is pretty moot anyway ML already confirmed the idea the devs were conveying is that the "player"(not their toon) is "selling" the Eudaemon as a value of pixelated information NOT as a representative of an "in-game world entity" selling them is simply not part of the game lore. I might have stated this before but I hadn't really thought of the issue on this scale at the time of the OP and I don't think it would have made a difference in the tone or direction of the discussion anyway: The implication of a simulation of slavery kind of imo only applies if the "toon" is considered to be selling the Eudaemon which would be an example of an "unqualified" depiction of in-game world slave trade. SO while imo it might still be morally ambiguous and tasteless to maintain the button, I can't outright claim it IS purposefully or inadvertently an "in-game lore" depiction of slave trading...THAT small difference imo technically and suitably disables my "simulation" argument. The explanation is still apologetic of the objectionable choice of wording imo, but not quite a provocation of slavery "in" the game, as [without the explanation] it could both easily and rationally be construed. Which actually in essence was my original objection: that it was an unnecessary element thats suggestive/reminiscent of something "unethical" and thereby a tasteless choice of wording. The ridiculous arguing beyond the point of the OP brought out all the further analysis,elaborations, and ideological stampeding.

If a building owner has a picture of a person on the side of a building, and they sell the building, that is not the same as selling a person. You have anthropomorphized a being to specifically meet your criteria.

no the devs have anthro-morphed them by giving them a humanoid appearance and bearing. What I've done is symbolized them as representing/simulating persons which they most certainly DO in my OUTLANDISH opinion. Furthermore the analogy is very weak because Eudaemons are not mere "pictures" in the game they are active entities ostensibly meant to simulate a separate person or being with behaviors similar to what I'd expect from someone following their leader..or perhaps slave master.

[FireKatz]

ME WRITE LONG
ME IS SMART
hurr durr derp

[Alsatia01]

yeh your going to need to cite something here.

yes please list.

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

Political - of or relating to the government of the public affairs of a country or group of peoples.

It reminds me of slavery. I don't know if these ar supposed to be demons or whatever but it sends a bad message anyway, especially since people tend to refer to them as "Kids" the result is people are encouraged to "sell" their "kids".

So, what is considered 'political'? Taxes, political representatives, abortion, guns, religions, death penalties, civil rights, human rights..... slavery. On the surface of the skin only the one rule was broken. However, if you delve into the discussion even a litttle, historically, or slavery as it effects people today, all of those other topics are unavoidable. ( national, religious, sexual, ethnic nature )

Depending on your answer, I may owe you an apology there. You've made several references to human trafficking (I can provide examples if necessary) , and I had assumed that was analogous to modern-day trafficking, ie - sexual slavery. In hindsight, (and based upon your reaction) it seems you were using it more as a vague term for the slave-trade. You'd have to tell me.

Also no I don't agree. True I'm sure ML has access to the tools necessary to do this, and probably could do so without much if any oversight, being a tenured mod, but in terms of legitimacy and forum rules, no there is some expectation of integrity for a mod in my belief system, so no I don't agree.

Even if you disagree that the OP didn't violate the rules, the following rule literally gives mods a blank check to do whatever they want.

16. Reality Square Games reserves the right to change, modify or update these rules at will.

okay REALLY?! Transferring ownership in exchange for value is just about the literal definition of "selling" something.

No it's not. There is no requirement of ownership, for the reason I already enumerated. You can sell things that do not belong to you.

Okay I can give you that a person could be "selling" as a go between,drop shipper or commissioned agent but you can't avoid the implication of at least one party somewhere owning the goods being exchanged and transferring that ownership to another party.

Person A owns an object. Person B steals said object, from person A. Person B, sells the object to person C.

Does person B 'own' the object? How about person C? Presumably if person C doesn't know it's stolen, I wouldn't necessarily impact any blame onto them. But for my understanding, while the transfer is technically made, it doesnt belong to anyone except person A.

In the case of theft/fencing the presumption simply unethically overrides the social entitlement of the original owner on the prospect of creating a "new" owner.

Irrelevant. Morals and ethics are obviously not a factor, or they wouldn't be 'owning' slaves in the first place. Unless you are saying that when someone steals something, they somehow come to 'own' it? I wouldn't agree with that.

IN the case of selling a business there is no real analogy to slavery there..a business is not ethically considered a person and employees are compensated,voluntary,contractual agents of a business..not slaves at all in the literal sense. Ironically if that analogy were applied to the Eudaemons by devs the player would have to remit some form of severance pay or unemployment benefit to the Eudamons to get rid of them. There is no context I know of(and I doubt you can forward any) where a person can be owned or sold..outside of the contexts of slavery/human trafficking..not even the "sale" of babies is an exception to this. I'll even go so far as to say the same applies to the historic "trading" of humans would fall under the same context in modern cultures. Spouse-swapping perhaps but I think of that as more of an expression of consensual extramarital activities.

There are a few examples (as we've discussed before) where 'selling' a person could technically work, though admittedly they aren't as strong as arguments as slavery would be. The only vague caveat I would give there, is with no context I'm not sure it's fair or right to assume anything.

Part of the game entitles you owning your own town with lots of people whom work for you, guards, troops, maids, gold miners, farmers, merchants. They don't anymore, but they used to walk the town. Are all those people slaves too? I mean, we don't specifically see them being paid, but the argument that they are being paid behind the scenes somehow is a stronger argument than everyone there being a slave of one form or another.

All of that discussion is pretty moot anyway ML already confirmed the idea the devs were conveying is that the "player"(not their toon) is "selling" the Eudaemon as a value of pixelated information NOT as a representative of an "in-game world entity" selling them is simply not part of the game lore.

I'm not sure if MemoryLane said that or not, but I'm not going to presume to speak for them.

I might have stated this before but I hadn't really thought of the issue on this scale at the time of the OP and I don't think it would have made a difference in the tone or direction of the discussion anyway: The implication of a simulation of slavery kind of imo only applies if the "toon" is considered to be selling the Eudaemon which would be an example of an "unqualified" depiction of in-game world slave trade. SO while imo it might still be morally ambiguous and tasteless to maintain the button, I can't outright claim it IS purposefully or inadvertently an "in-game lore" depiction of slave trading...THAT small difference imo technically and suitably disables my "simulation" argument. The explanation is still apologetic of the objectionable choice of wording imo, but not quite a provocation of slavery "in" the game, as [without the explanation] it could both easily and rationally be construed. Which actually in essence was my original objection: that it was an unnecessary element thats suggestive/reminiscent of something "unethical" and thereby a tasteless choice of wording. The ridiculous arguing beyond the point of the OP brought out all the further analysis,elaborations, and ideological stampeding.

Fair enough.

no the devs have anthro-morphed them by giving them a humanoid appearance and bearing. What I've done is symbolized them as representing/simulating persons which they most certainly DO in my OUTLANDISH opinion. Furthermore the analogy is very weak because Eudaemons are not mere "pictures" in the game they are active entities ostensibly meant to simulate a separate person or being with behaviors similar to what I'd expect from someone following their leader..or perhaps slave master.

Well I would agree they aren't 'only' pictures, but how far away from 'just pictures' are they in reality? If a person was being depicted as a slave on the side of a building, and you sell the building, is that a form of slavery? I mean to be fair, it is a depiction of slavery, and you are sort-of selling them. Bit of a gray area, no?

An odd side note, I've heard people refer to them as 'guardians' or kids, but never as anything else really. Historically, people don't use slaves as body-guards, for reasons I'm sure would be somewhat obvious. In any case, that's not really relevant, just something I thought might be noteworthy.

[AdaJames]

History is just that, history. We can learn from it, but after that, it is best to move on. To dwell on it or to take some sort of persecution complex from historical events is ludicrous in the extreme. Should the China government be declaring war on European nations for the Opium Trade?

Grow up.

[R27377783]

reflexes

History is just that, history. We can learn from it, but after that, it is best to move on. To dwell on it or to take some sort of persecution complex from historical events is ludicrous in the extreme. Should the China government be declaring war on European nations for the Opium Trade?

Grow up.

mother knows best eh? Anyway "persecution complex" works best when its reinforced by current forms of persecutions... you know like inherent privilege disparities. also taken to its extreme the same rationale can be used to justify inaction. Anyway if I answer your question, I feel like we'll be entering some very specific political discussion. I'll just say this: the past and future are perceptions that otherwise exist in the same moment..the people,their buildings and behaviors may change, but "time" is the same moment. Anyway maybe you've missed your calling..since you can't seem to stay way from it maybe you should probably be writing speeches or working on some political campaign, not so much game forum camping.
btw...
I reflect back 10fold...whatever is wished upon me...thank you.

[AdaJames]

Stop sending me PMs. I don't want to be spammed by your stupid spirit possession nonsense.

This is the second time I have asked you to stop sending me PMs.

[R27377783]

big words, no substance.
thats how i view this topic.

an easy perception to form when you don't understand the words being used.

[R27377783]

ME WRITE LONG
ME IS SMART
hurr durr derp

so..THIS is what you do when the grown ups are talking? nowonder your doing all caps but obviously not yelling, its past your bed time.

[R27377783]

Stop sending me PMs. I don't want to be spammed by your stupid spirit possession nonsense.

This is the second time I have asked you to stop sending me PMs.

so long as you post on my topic, your welcome to read my pm. enjoy.