Bodhesatva said:
Realism is a major concern for you? And you play stuff like TF2/Half Life etc? :p
"Game," according to the dictionary(s) I've read: an interactive amusement or pastime. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game Objectives, danger, and endings are not necessary attributes to be defined as a "game." In essence, people who think games do require endings/danger are just making a definition of the word up to suit themselves. The argument is so absurd, so poor, that really the only other time I've seen it used is with racism. When the US was young, we enslaved and disenfranchised black people. How could we do this, when our Declaration of Independance specifically gave everyone inalienable rights? When every human was, by definition, free to pursue life, happiness, and the pursuit of property? Simple -- just say that black people are non-people (this was seriously the solution -- every black person was counted as <b>2/3 of a person</b> when a slave master voted in electoral happenings). I know, I know, it seems extreme, but it's the only other example similar to this I can even think of -- if you don't like reality, just redefine all the words to your liking until reality fits your perception. |
First, it's 3/5 of a person (hence the 3/5 clause). Second, the real way they did it was to say that African Americans could not be citizens of the United States (although they could be of the states) in the Dred Scott decision. Your point is still applicable, though. They're still redefining what a citizen is.
