Lieju said:
I hope you realize I'm talking about video-games and their writing here, not real people. And since most female characters (and male) in video-games are badly written, that causes certain expectations. You kinda sound like you're arguing just argument's sake. Or you haven't read my comments and replies very thoroughly. How many times do I have to type this out: no matter their looks, a female character can be still interesting and complex.
Yeah, probably that one. I do enjoy a good argument.
Lieju said:
(Although personally, I'd hope to see more female characters with realistic body-proportions)
Fair enough. The flip side of that is the male proportions, which gives the RE5 depiction of Chris 'Zombies-Must-Drop-Protein-Shakes' Redfield.
Lieju said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.333232-Skullgirls-Artist-Weighs-In-on-Sexism-Controversy
Yes...that was this article. But at the bottom of that, there's the Eurogamer link labeled "source." That was the original interview.
Lieju said:
Depends how you define 'lying'. If you define it as misrepresenting an issue, maybe. (But communication always includes misrepresentation to some extent, on purpose or not)
Ironically, I can usually tell if a person is lying if their excuse begins with "Depends how you define 'lying.'" That's not the case with you, obviously, but it was a funny thought.
Anyhoo, yeah. Intentionally misrepresenting facts is lying, because 'misrepresenting' means you're presenting them in a different way than how they actually are. You can 'misrepresent' the number 'six' by referring to it as the number 'seven,' for instance. Or you can 'misrepresent' the number of complaints on an issue you invented by referring to 'zero people' as 'several people.' You can't inflate an issue that doesn't exist. The Summer of the Shark was blown out of proportion, but only by sheer virtue of nobody in the public bothering to check shark attack statistics from previous years and compare them to that year. If reporters had
invented attacks, that would have been straightforward lying.
Lieju said:
There's the publicity. Spreading the ideology, getting free press.
Yeah, but the sort of attention you get from faking publicity stuff is generally the
bad kind, especially when you're trying to market a product. Sony's been bitten in the ass a lot for faked 'fan creations' that hurt their sales when people uncovered (relatively quickly) that it had been Sony-sponsored.
Lieju said:
There are a lot of trolls in the world but I find it difficult to believe an organisation like PETA would do stuff just for the lulz, and that they don't hope to gain something.
The "Lobster Empathy Center [http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2008/06/18/Jail-for-Sale-PETA-Party-in-the-Clinker.aspx]" plan says otherwise. It certainly doesn't bode well when the writer sounds like he can barely keep his erection in his pants,
writes out maniacal laughter, and screams with glee at the concept of a "PETA-party," which to all the UK Escapists will sound like a word invented to describe a large assembly of pedophiles.
Not to mention that this is a prison...ie, a building meant to hold large numbers of people. Ignoring the cosmetic issues with it, that sort of thing could be a godsend to a city with a growing homeless issue or, I don't know,
a collapsing housing market. This is just another PETA example of trying to snatch up things that could genuinely help human beings
right now in favor of animals they have no chance of doing anything about. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the funding from this stillborn venture to buy up hundreds of gallons of much-needed donor blood and dumping it on top of people leaving a steakhouse.
Though to the point of them not adhering to the "All attention is good attention" mindset, I bring up their crashing of Columbia University's graduation ceremony. Apparently, they make a habit of this. And how do I know about it? Well, news, for one thing, but also because my cousin was one of the students graduating. And on one of the most significant days of her life, a group of loudmouths seized the microphone and called everyone present a murderer.
So yeah. They clearly don't care about getting negative attention. The only alternative is that they're so laughably out of touch with public sentiment that they can't tell one from the other.
Lieju said:
Maybe my English is bad, then. Although, legally, conspiracy includes a group of people. Also
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
Ah, right you are. I was getting my 'premeditation' and 'conspiracy' definitions mixed up.
Lieju said:
And even if we are going with your definition of 'planning to do something beforehand', that's not what I said either. Where did I say someone was planning anything?
Also, do you really use the word 'conspire' like that?
As in "I'm conspiring to make an omelet for myself this evening"
Considering my aforementioned blunder with the definition of conspiracy, I was thinking more of 'scheming,' or its less nefarious cousin 'plotting.'
But yes, those would both be grammatically correct. The main difference between "planning" to do something and "plotting" is that the latter implies malevolent intent. The implications of certain words choices say a lot about the person saying them. Take 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life,' for example. It would seem odd that both sides of a debate are in favor of something, but neither side wants to be 'anti-choice' or 'anti-life,' respectively.
Lieju said:
It has been fun having this discussion, but I feel it's going nowhere, and unless you'll make some genuinely interesting points, I won't reply to you anymore.
Ah, here we go. A perfect example of my previous point. See the implications of the bold section? Whether intended or not, it gives the distinct impression that any debate going on isn't about a clash of opinions: it's about the other side being smart enough to interest you. And the moment that you decide that they're not making "interesting points" anymore (note the difference between 'valid' and 'interesting'), you "won't reply to [them] anymore." That places you as both the opposing camp of an argument as well as that of the moderator, which is like trying to be both the prosecution and the judge in a single trial.
But, of course, that's just implications for you. Plenty of them are unintentional, and I'm guessing that you were trying to say that this has strayed off course enough as it is and we may as well call it quits. Bear in mind, though, that this is ultimately still the internet: whether or not a debate continues is entirely contingent on your will to participate in the thread. If you've no interest in continuing, my genuine and sarcasm-free advice is simply to not reply. Frankly, most names on this site are interchangable for me, and I've no reason to press this issue. It's the debate-of-the-moment, and that moment has passed.
Whew. I feel like a less-interesting version of the dude from 'Memento.' I've forgotten where the conversation started after writing too long on it. Oh well. Later!