Messages

   I'm pretty sure there have been game devs that figured out somewhere along the line that most of the people buying their games were teenage boys, so they worked harder at appealing to teenage boys, resulting in a dedicated fan base of teenage boys and a positive feedback loop that would marginalize everyone else.
   There are games that avoid the female armor trend or leave the bikini as an option (ex. Skyrim, Dark Souls, WoW, Fire Emblem), but I'm disturbed by the fact that this isn't an expectation for most non-satire/non-porn games.  I think there was a controversy recently about the female options in Dragon's Crown - it looked like a decent enough game otherwise.  I don't care for shallow sex appeal, but even if I didn't mind it on its own, it's pretty toxic in the same environment with a sensible story or emotional character development, and it makes the gaming community look like sociopaths.  While Bikini Samurai Squad might be entertaining in some sense of the word, I would never want games in general or even the majority of games of one genre stick to one form of entertainment, and I would vastly prefer games be designed where I can play as a girl or have female party members that make choices like reasonable humans.

Relevant: [spoiler][/spoiler]

Thanks for making me feel welcome here guys!
And to answer Ibrahim's question, no I am not actually from Wroclaw/Poland  .

I thought that was what I said in my last post; sorry if there was any confusion with my wording, but I was describing the false dilemma in the last sentence (ex. limiting options to A and B, whether or not option C would have been a compromise).   I already said that fallacies come in opposite pairs and that the opposite of the golden mean fallacy is the false dilemma.

Never mind - I just found where it was mentioned on the Wikipedia logical fallacy list (which is actually pretty expansive).  A lot of logical fallacies are also fallacies in the inverse form - for example, the appeal to wealth and the appeal to poverty.  Is there a fallacy that says that there can be no compromise on a serious issue?

EDIT - yes, the false dilemma.

I'm not sure if this is included in the fallacy list yet, but what about an appeal to compromise? For example:

"Creationists think the Earth is around 6000 years old, while scientists think the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. 
Both groups argue passionately that they are correct, so the age of the Earth must be in the millions of years."
     OR
"Some of us want to fund NASA's billion dollar space expedition, and some of us don't.  If we all contribute NASA would have enough.
The best option is to have us all contribute toward sending NASA a fraction of the amount they would need."

In spite of the arguments and evidence either side would bring forward, there is an attempt to make both groups happy by appealing to the middle ground between two extremes as a better answer, which in many cases makes no sense.  Although yes/no questions may be oversimplified, there is no room for compromise between a YES and a NO.

Hello everyone, I am Wroclaw.  I was invited to join the forums by my friend Tnu. 
I am an agnostic atheist skeptic of dubious political alignment who enjoys philosophy, rock music, movies, and video games.