next »

[Bennett]

And it's pretty uncalled-for to get angry at me. Seriously, chill out. Have a tea. 

That's why we have this for mock-anger and this for actual anger.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

Yeah, I know. That's not my usual response to uncalled-for anger. :D

Speaking of which, that mock-anger doesn't look very "mock"-like. It looks more like "raging" angry while the other looks more like "boiling" angry.

[Chris Z]

I think it's funny how Paul and Super Joe centric this forum has become.  :D

[Craig Stern]

Has it? Coulda fooled me.

Aaaaanywayyy...back on topic?

[Shade Jackrabbit]

And Derek just sorta became this overwatching god figure. Often he is silent, occasionally gracing the boards with his presence, like a shining symbol of hope in a sea of despair. Handing out justice, he returns to his throne upon the tallest mountains, watching and waiting.

But hold! For there comes two new beings of high power! Descending from the sky yet not the heavens comes the elder being Paul, valiently trying to show those poor mortals how their knowledge is wrong, and yet how they are so right. We listen in awe yet envy with the deepest hatred, knowing that the line between love and hate is thin.

And yet the angels cry, for the earth swells up and cracks, a great beast being released from within! He looks upon the two ascended ones, Derek and Paul, then looks at the mortals around him. He spits his loving hatred upon us, points to the two and says with a booming voice... "let's go."

Has it? Coulda fooled me.

Aaaaanywayyy...back on topic?

Damn you Craig you ruined it.

[Craig Stern]

My bad.

[Lurk]

games don't hurt anyone directly, so go for it

you may get into trouble w/ copyright infringement and get sued by mcdonalds though, so my advice would be to disguise the fast food name and call it something slightly different like mcwhopper or mcburger or something to avoid that

Seriously Paul? Go for it? A game about children getting raped in a restaurant? So everything's fine as long as something does'nt DIRECTLY hurt someone? How about a kid who's been through the trauma of rape, you think he's going to like that game? Sometimes it seems you want to play the devil's advocate so much, you end up spewing truly horrific nonsense. And then, you get away with saying

whatever he wants of course. and likewise i should do whatever i want, which includes pointing out how barbaric/instinctual this thread is

.
I don't understand your angle on life, but I get a suspicion it's all theory and no practice, because in real life, where you deal with real people, you have to reach compromises, you have to trust your instincts and empathize with others, even though they might be using these feelings of yours to con you. As for your theory on how letting everything go as long as it does'nt hurt someone 'directly', because some good we cannot predict can come out of it, I seriously doubt the cure for cancer is linked in any way to "Restaurant Kid Rape"; and no space program is currently depending on a "Muslim Massacre" sequel.

But I think Sigvatr should go ahead and release his repulsive rape game, as you so enthusiastically prodded him to do. And you should host it on your webpage, and vouch for it once this inadequate society start noticing, using the same arguments you're using here(it does'nt hurt anybody directly, so it's alright- and -some good we cannot predict might come out of all this). Else, you're not standing for your principles. Chomsky wrote a preface to one of Faurisson's books, surely you can do the same for Sigvatr's next adventure in rousing his country's secret service?

[cactus]

If his purpose was to make a political statement and some people got offended alongside, that would only make it more right in the sense that the casualties were on the side of an attempt at a greater good.

Actually, sigvatr's intention doesn't necessarily mean a lot if you want to find a deeper (more artistic) merit in the game. I think people teaching things like analyzing art and literature often openly admit that the ideas and symbols they find in the works of others are often unintentional, and more of a product produced by the analyst than the author. However they don't feel that that is something that really diminishes the value of the work that's being analyzed.

Besides, who's to say that sigvatr's not just saying whatever he feels like saying anyway? He's been intentionally rubbing people the wrong way for a while, so even if he's sincere (which I actually think he is), there's no real way of telling.

[Bennett]

Yeah, I think the idea is that undeniably good art is often created by complete cretins, so we either have to say:

a) the artist's intentions aren't very important, or
b) this undeniably good artwork isn't actually good at all because it was created by a cretin with stupid intentions.

Viewed in this light, it seems pretty stupid to say b).

A lot of artists, like Sigvatr, hate it when people take an unintended message from their work, but that's tough cheese, basically.

[googoogjoob]

One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dalí is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other.

[Shade Jackrabbit]

If his purpose was to make a political statement and some people got offended alongside, that would only make it more right in the sense that the casualties were on the side of an attempt at a greater good.

Actually, sigvatr's intention doesn't necessarily mean a lot if you want to find a deeper (more artistic) merit in the game. I think people teaching things like analyzing art and literature often openly admit that the ideas and symbols they find in the works of others are often unintentional, and more of a product produced by the analyst than the author. However they don't feel that that is something that really diminishes the value of the work that's being analyzed.

Besides, who's to say that sigvatr's not just saying whatever he feels like saying anyway? He's been intentionally rubbing people the wrong way for a while, so even if he's sincere (which I actually think he is), there's no real way of telling.

Yeah but I think most of the art world is fully of bullshit anyways simply BECAUSE they ignore what the author was actually saying.

Take Tolkein's work, for example. Some of the full-bound copies of Lord of the Rings (including two my dad owns) include a foreward by him proclaiming that there is no allegory or references to christianity or World War I in it. Does that stop people from saying it does? No. Are they wrong? Yes.

One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dalí is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other.

I can't say I know much about Salvador Dalí. I get the idea here, and to clarify I would like to say that I think Muslim Massacre has no deeper meanings because Sigvatr said it didn't.

Although...

...huh. You know, this entire topic has been rather interesting... there's a lot of interesting things to learn and...  ...wait...  ...oh god...  I think Paul was onto something here.

[Eric McQuiggan]

Humans love patterns and will try to find them in anything.

[googoogjoob]

One ought to be able to hold in one's head simultaneously the two facts that Dalí is a good draughtsman and a disgusting human being. The one does not invalidate or, in a sense, affect the other.

I can't say I know much about Salvador Dalí. I get the idea here, and to clarify I would like to say that I think Muslim Massacre has no deeper meanings because Sigvatr said it didn't.

Dalí was a supporter of Francisco Franco.

[Chris Z]

Are you all seriously comparing this kid to Dali?

[Eric McQuiggan]

I think that he is trying to prove that the desires of the creator don't mean a thing, in most cases.