It's strange you think you have the ability to infer anger from where there is none. More of your supercilious thinking. Or is this you just applying a diversion, appealing to emotion rather than logic to get away from addressing anything for real? You see how that works? We could do this all day. You accuse me of certain tactics that you yourself have done this entire thread. It's borderline absurd. Does your philosophy professor give you high marks for that line of reasoning on your exams?
What is your purpose in caring about what people spend their money on and what their backlogs consist of if this isn't a moral or ethical discussion? How do you complain about others spending money on video games they don't intend on playing instead of UNICEF without bringing some kind of moral or ethical judgment into the discussion? And regardless of your think your original topic was, the very topic here is "morality," so if your beast has grown beyond what you intended it to be, either get with the program or step aside if it's not the discussion you intended to have. Because this thread is supposed to be some kind of moral or ethical discussion even if you wish it weren't.
You still fail to grasp what either sex or rape is, then you try to pin it on me playing avoidance tactics as your reason for understanding neither. Neither is necessarily an act to deposit semen, so that's already a terrible defense of your extreme attempt at an analogy. (Which, by the way, an appeal to extremes is also highly illogical.) You can have sex and rape without ejactulation - or is that too complex for you to grasp as well? Maybe you'll be able to find that on Google. Not to mention with your molestation vs. cleaning example, which you've conviently not defended, the acts aren't even the same regardless of intent. You've also chosen examples where intent is dependant on two actors, whereas in the video game example the intent is only with one actor on inanimate objects. It's not even the same ballpark.
For the sake of argument - put intent back into the video game example. What is the statement, critic, or commentary you're trying to make on the person who buys not to play? Because it's some kind of moralistic or ethical judgment at the end of the day - they threw away their money that could have gone to a higher utility, so they've done something bad or wrong. But the inaction of the person who intended to play the games leads to the same result. Why are they not to be judged similarly? It's like murder vs. negligant manslaughter. Someone is dead, both are bad, but one person is just slightly less bad than the other.
And I think ultimately that's what you're failing to see - when you go down the utilitarianism, you are aiming for maximum utility. You think a higher utility for money would be giving it to UNICEF because your heart is bleeding for the poor across the world. That's cetainly true for person buying games intending not to play them, but it is also true for the person who ends up not playing their games despite the best intentions. And as I outlined before, which you apparently had no rebuttal to since you somehow think you can have this discussion without morals or ethics, is that the common video game is a completely extravagent pleasure where all of that money could be put toward a higher utility, such as UNICEF. You try to defeat a similar argument earlier by saying, for some reason, that at least the Linkin Park t-shirt has a purpose as it could be used as a rag (which would be a lower utility unless the shirt can no longer be worn as a shirt - a very bizzare counterpoint to make in the first place). Even the other components of utilitarianism of happiness and reducing suffering fail to justify any video game purchases either at all, or most certainly after a point in time where enough is enough. Humans found happiness, relaxation, excitement, enjoyment and meaning before the common video game, and thus could continue to do so while putting the money for those games to the higher utility of ending suffering around the world, which in turn would likely make the world a better place, potentially resulting in even greater happiness for all than video games would have ever brought.
And I think at the end of the day, your outlook is a masturbatory attempt to keep yourself at the pretentious highground you see yourself sitting upon while judging those who are not similarly situated. If your heart bleeds so much for those UNICEF seeks to help and the fact that humanity would rather engage in materialism than help each other out, then stop buying video games and donate even more of that money so more people can be saved by your generosity. Otherwise, stop trying to place yourself on some kind of pedestal because you intend to play every non-filler game in your Steam library. And hell, whether you do play every game in your Steam library or you don't, the effect on humanity is exactly the same when if could have been slightly different had that money gone to a higher utility that will be unmatched by whatever utility you think exists for yourself by playing 100 video games. Or you could admit that the world is what it is, many acts like sitting on your ass paying for and playing video games are selfish and not aiming for the highest utility, and stop judging and concerning yourself with others for whatever collecting or playing hobbies they may have.
ed regions. I cringe very slightly when people openly admit that they bought something that they never intend to use; meanwhile Unicef is urgently asking for donations so they can provide Syrians with stuff like water.
I'm sure you understand.
