First off, I respect your argument against censoring this application. Having said that, with regard to your initial post and your response to Tim, I think it's a little too black and white. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between this application and other forms of entertainment/media because in addition to what you have already pointed out, one also has to consider social context and intent. While I agree with you that this application by itself and inherently, as you point out, may be no more violent than what you see on the six o'clock news or in any other video game, one must go beyond an application's inherent traits and look at its context and intent in order to ascertain whether it morally and/or ethically crosses a line, and in my opinion, this one does. In fact, this applies to ANYTHING in life.
Secondly, in your response to Tim, you oversimplify and overgeneralize our society while, at the same time, drawing conclusions based on questionable analogies that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. You seem to be drawing conclusions based on cultural relativisms, which constitutes a fallacy in your argument because you presented no basis for the assumptions you made in speaking of those relativisms. One thing has nothing to do with the other; whether the news, CSI, or a video game is deemed acceptable or unacceptable has nothing to do with this application, and if you claim that it does, tell us why - don't just post a bunch of fancy rhetoric and fill your responses with endless metadiscourse, as you did with Tim, to get your point across. It confuses most people and makes no sense, because you're not really making an argument at all - it's just a bunch of words.
Thirdly, Tim never never claimed to be passing anything off as a reasonable thought - you said this, not him. He merely stated his opinion. If that angers and sickens you, I suggest you get over it and get used to it rather quickly, because this world is full of unreasonable and unthoughtful people. You seem like a very thoughtful an intelligent person, but based on your response to Tim it also seems like you get bent out of shape pretty easily, have a bit of a rebellious and idealist streak in you, and run a bit hot. Life's too short to have such a low tolerance and to get bent so easily - take it easy!
Please don't misconstrue this as an attack on you; I just wanted to point out that in my opinion, you may want to revisit or just explain your assumptions, because it seems like your argument is based on a really shaky foundation.
Oookay...how to respond...first off, let me give you some insight into
my "context and intent" as well as this "game"'s. My references to daytime TV were not ever meant to add anything to my argument in the context of the baby shaking application, it was merely intended to point out loosely analogous hypocrisies in an effort to show Tim the lack of logic in his response with more easily understood examples.
Now that's out of the way, yea, I don't tolerate lack of thought when somebody tries to depose my stance. I wanted a thoughtful discussion, and post-Tim I've gotten that and I am pleased. As for my argument being "fancy rhetoric" I don't see any such thing. In my original post (not the one made entirely to attack Tim's post, the one with the argument) you will see that I tried to approach the topic from a very logical position. I stated pros, cons, easy to make misconceptions and I implored others to take an introspective approach and maybe see where the logic behind banning this application falters.
However, you sir have merely asked me to look at the "context and intent" without putting forth any information yourself. If you watch the video in the post I linked above you'll see that, while the app. may be in poor taste, it was clearly intended as a joke. There are jokes I don't find funny, usually anything involving animal cruelty. I simply don't watch/listen/play those kinds of things. Though I do feel anger at the kind of people that laugh at that. I don't laugh at this application or any of its ilk. But the anger I feel is toward the people who would use this kind of app. and those that would
want to harm other creatures in such a way. But as I said before that kind of outrage is no reason to ban the application from sale.
My moral obligation has always been "If an action doesn't knowingly harm another being, directly or indirectly, then you may do whatever you please." This application showcases a part of society that finds pleasure in...distasteful things and it may goad those already predisposed to baby shaking into action, but there ARE people in this world who find humor in things like this. And again, as I previously stated, there might actually be people who don't know shaking a baby is dangerous. It's a knee-jerk reaction you have towards unpleasant sights and sounds to want to make them stop. In fact, the human body is genetically conditioned to GREATLY DISLIKE the sound of a baby crying. If even one idiot plays this application and learns that he shouldn't shake his baby, isn't that worth something?
But it doesn't even matter if anybody learns anything from it, it's not worth getting riled up about. In all sensible terms this application is not a danger to anyone. However, it is
conceivable that this could spark a violent episode in unstable people. But to
unstable people ANYTHING could set them off. The store being out of MILK could set them off. A
normal person (meaning without diagnosable mental disease or defect) doesn't see this obvious attempt at humor and go shake a baby on a whim. It does no foreseeable harm and does indeed bring pleasure to certain individuals.
Now I have yet to see you or anyone else make a convincing argument FOR the banning of this app. "It crosses a line" is simply not an argument. Explain the line, why it's there, and what this "context and intent" have to do with anything and maybe I'll take you seriously.
And just to be 100% clear. My second post was an attack on Tim's post ONLY. Anything in it you took to be a part of my original argument was in error. Please adjust your complaints to reflect this.
