First of all, marriage was traditionally not a relationship between a man and a woman, it was a relationship between a young man and an underage girl organized by the parents of the two. The marriage also included mistresses. Secondly biological evolution was never helped by a union between a man and a woman, it was helped by many many unions between many men and many woman, polygamy is actually the most traditional form of marriage (a tribe all fucking together and looking after each other, marriage, adultery and exclusive dating are all quite new things).
Also should a couple not be allowed to get married if one member is infertile or the couple never wants to have kids, would that not be "co-operative masturbation" as you called it? Your slippery slope argument about marrying animals is also incorrect, first of all slippery slope arguments suck, they only bring irrelevant material to the discussion and argue that people cannot make progress without also using choice. The argument you used about marriage meaning nothing is the equivalent of "I oppose lowering the drinking age of 21 to 18. this will only lead to further demands to lower it to 16. Then it will be 14 and before we know it our new-borns will be suckled on wine rather than mother's milk"
The proposed change to the meaning of the word marriage will be that any two consenting human adults will be allowed to be married, so lets focus on this issue because chicken fucking has nothing to do with it.
Also homosexuality somewhat predates marriage. I say somewhat because the word "homosexuality" was invented by man in the late Victorian era (late 1800s), but same sex relationships have been around since before language. Numerous studies have shown that when animals are in heat they will have sex with members of the same sex as well the opposite and dolphins (one of the only other animals to have sex for fun) will also have sex with both genders. The truth is the words homosexual and heterosexual have nothing to with the natural world, they are socially constructed words, Alfred Kinsey's work showed rather than people existing in one of the three categories (gay, bi, straight) they actually exist on a range. Think of it as a line where one side is exclusively homosexual and they other is exclusively heterosexual, the truth is that most people lean towards one side but actually being on the edge is incredibly rare (being on the edge would essentially mean you lack the ability to even recognize members of your own sex's attractiveness e.g. You don't know if John Goodman is uglier or hotter than Daniel Craig).
Marriage is just a social constructed word and it's meanings have changed many times in history (for the good, for a very long time old men would take 14 year olds as their brides and interracial marriages were once not respected). Today we live in society where marriage is about love, unless you're gay. I say we should improve marriage once again.
@Dr_Feelgood38: I do think it was written with atlas shrugged in mind, but based of implies more of a retelling, I think Bioshock is more of criticism, remember Andrew Ryan is the one who arguably begins the war when he uses his power as an official to take over Fontaine Futuristics, Atlas/Fontaine comes up with his scheme in retaliation. Of course Ryan's ideology is based off free state capitalism but he while he is reluctant he ultimately decides it's better that he take control of Futuristics. I think this is the main criticism the game is making as it's showing that now super powerful business is going to willingly lose in competition when "other" methods are available. Ayn Rand's biggest problem is that she has an all or nothing possiblity, she never realised how contricting an ideology is and forgot the benefits of being able to adapt, change and compromise with your ideologies.
The rebellion of the class is interesting because Ayn Rand was an elitist who hated the poor but Andrew Ryan (her metaphorical representation) is over throne not by the rebellion itself (although his faction barely survives) but instead he is destroyed by Atlas' slave. Atlas builds his power through money originally but is actually victorious because of underhand dirty tactics. Not to mention Dr. Suchong's story arc presents many questions of whether or not people really have control of themselves yet he sells his ablities as a psychologist as a business. Thus the game also asks the question, in an age where peoples intellect and cognitive control is under question the free market can't really work.
Remember Andrew Ryan was an extreme atheist, going so far as to outlaw the bible (hence why the smugglers have crates of bibles) even in his non-state society. The city was named Rapture as a joke, rapture is were all the sinners will be left when judgment days comes as well as meaning a feeling of sublime bliss (sin and joy go hand in hand). Now why the Doctor named the products Adam and EVE i'm not sure, perhaps she also enjoys the same atheist joke as ryan or perhaps she feels those words best present how powerful these substances are, but from a thematic standpoint rapture is very much a place of decadence and decay and thus twisting rapture in something beautiful yet deadly and making Adam and EVE sources of life, power, death, addiction and madness is a good reflection of the state of Rapture, a city of beauty which has decayed and degenerated into something violent and destructive.
Bioshock is not based on atlas shrugged or Ayn rand, Andrew Ryan the character is based off Ayn Rand. Bioshock is a criticism of Ayn Rand philosophy, one of extreme capitalism (ever wonder why med-stations cost money to use). Essentially the points (or at least some of them) Bioshock is trying to make is that a society that so idealist is bound to fail because people are humans rather than heroes. Andrew Ryan's concept of a city where people are judged only by their practical merits and captialist successactually is quite tempting, but ultimately it fails not because of "the parasite" (Ayn Rand's word for the poor, weak and anyone else who couldn't live independantly) but because of Fontaine, an incredibly smart, shreud buisnessman and con-man. If you listen to all the audio records in the game you can piece together that eventually Andrew Ryan resorts to using excutive power (or government regulation is you can really consider rapture a government) to protect his own assets and his takes over Fontaine futuristics.
This is "at least what i think" what Bioshock is trying to talk about, just like communism, objectivism (rand's philosophy) sounds great on paper and would be great if everyone followed the rules, but to expect people to do so is not only stupid, it's irresponsible and will end up hurting all of society. This criticism in itself is not actually that new but it is one that constantly need to be brought up to remind philisophers, psychologists, sociologists, scientists and everyone with any power, you are not always right and even if you are in the real world things are always more complicated, to create strict rules based on ideolgies alone only constricts society and makes it more vunerble to corruption.
Nintendo have never advertised it as such or promised anything like that. When you buy a Wii you know exactly what your are buying and you know it lacks HD capability and no Wii game has ever misled people into thinking it should look as good as a 360 or ps3 game.
Not all of bungie are working on halo maybe? also MS does have first right of refusal but that still gives them a lot of freedom. Say after Halo Reach they make a new ip, they'll have enough money to risk it, MS will get first chance to publish and since they know the company and obviously like how they work (letting them make Halo Reach rather than someone else, they do own the IP now) MS may take the risky game. If MS doesn't want the new thing Bungie still can shop it around to anyone (EA partners program is very popular). This is a pretty good deal for Bungie because they have a cash cow gamers love and they can use that to make some risky stuff (remember DICE, after making Bad Company made Mirror's Edge and Valve packed Portal in with half-life 2, episode 1 and episode 2.
Was I the only person that really enjoyed the bombcast, I'm sure i don't agree with most of what Leigh said (SS uniforms not sexy...NEVER) but i found her pretty funny and she at the least promoted discussion. Why is it that when people don't agree with someone suddenly it's ok to abuse them and call them horrible names, I mean sure she said some weird stuff and was strong in her opinions but she does have every right to have and hell this podcast once had a one hour horrible candy tasting section (which i found funny as hell). I also enjoyed because I guess I am somewhat of an xbox fanboy (I only game on my xbox and laptop) and it was interesting to hear from someone who leaned a bit more on sony's side, it's a rare thing these days.
The only person who should never be on the bombcast is Shane the "man-god", that guy is only funny when he argues with Garnett, he can't take jokes very well though.
pfft don't worry, these guys donate to all the charities they spoof, it's why they get away with it, the joke makes you feel horrible but the same guys also donate a lot more than you do, thus you feel guilty and donate, Yay!
Log in to comment