What video game has choices that actually matter?
What video game has choices that actually matter?
- Posts
- Video Games
- Home
All urls found in this thread:
That doesn't make sense.
The one that made the flute gets it because she presumably already owns it. The one with money can offer to buy it, but the market isn't automatic and the creator can refuse.
The poor chick learned a valuable life lesson about how being poor sucks and doesn't entitle you to other people's property.
three children are arguing over a flute
not
an entitled artist and a filthy bum are trying to rob someone
make stuff
you must give it to someone else
Is this creator a commie or something? There's no implication that the kid sold it or left it somewhere
Now change "flute" to "money generated from publicly traded stocks" and answer again.
people are entitled to the fruit of my labour because they think they can make more use of it
Really joggles the noggin
I'm the only one who can play the money generated from publicly traded stocks"
HMMMMMM, REALLY MAKES YOU THINK
of course B
what the fuck is wrong with people even considering options A and C knowing all the possibilities here
why the fuck don't they just share the goddamn flute?
if child b made the flute, why child b doesn't just make 3 flutes?
then the child B and child A stops the production/consuming cycle so no one produces goods anymore. everyone becomes child C eventually. welcome to communism
Dishonored 1 & 2. The rationalization is also very tenable if you ask me
btw dont leave a bunch of food for thr carnivorous rats all over the street because they'll multiply heavily
smiths make swords but are shit at fighting
keep the swords for themselves anyway instead of giving it to the warrior
enemy army comes
smiths get raped cause they suck at fighting and warriors get raped because they don't have swords
I'm the only one who has the acumen to actually use this money to innovate new technologies
It's not hard, autist.
Obviously B. It’s her fucking flute. I may ask if she’s willing to share it with A, because the two obviously both like flutes and maybe they could be friends and share their talents.
I would tell C to fuck off. What the fuck is some poor fuck gonna do with a flute? Piece of shit probably plans to pawn it or sell it to a metal dump for heroin money.
"you would have improved my lot in life immensurably"
shut the fuck up you cant even play the flute
Insufficient information to proceed. Did the girl who made it do so of her own volition or was it commissioned? Was she employed and thus it's the product of a company? Why do I have it and why am I making the choice of who gets it? What relation are these children to me?
Smiths make weapons for something in return, they don't do it for fun
Protection is one of these needs. If child B doesn't give a shit about music, he has no need to give the flute to A. Dumbass
Teach three children to share their shit together, and explain Amartya Sen that context is important factor in any social situation and striping it away only leads to ruin.
Point is, our economy is 99% divorced from the "fruits of labor" logic anyway, so the dumb kids shouting "communism" are wrong.
It has nothing to do with economics, and it's sad that people think that's what justice looks like.
but the market isn't automatic and the creator can refuse
Unless the buyer claims to be gay, then they'll be forced by the government to accept the trade.
being dumb and not knowing that nobles and kings buy swords or simply fund the smiths in the first place to make armor and weapons for the army
smith makes a sword
warrior refuses to pay for it
hurr give it to me for free
that kind of logic is how Africa works and surprise surprise, nobody ever works hard again because greedy cunts steal their shit and never pay
A is representative of capitalist society. Consider . The common workers do all the work but it's their higher ups that rake in all the money. B doesn't actually get the fruits of their own labor unless they're self employed, because A "knows how to play it."
Is this one of those "I can't make a good argument based on real-world examples so I have to make up a shitty simplified analogy" comics?
I’d tell A to buy the flute from B. Then everyone who matters is happy. We know A can afford it by the fact that there’s a poor person and it isn’t her.
The person that can play the flute should get it. We need to encourage creativity in kids, and the kids that makes it is obviously good at that so encourage that kid to keep making things. The poor kid is nothing and should get nothing.
B made it, it’s their flute and they can choose to share it with the others if they wish.
these circumstances lack detail and are mistakenly left for interpretation.
this makes no commentary about the importance of privilege and the necessity to bridge the gap between 'A', 'B', and 'C'--a gap that mostly exists because of a top-down approach to governing. all 3 of these children are majorly disadvantaged in some way.
the richer you are, the easier it is to get richer. see the problem here? choosing any 'single' answer will leave you to be flamed. a multidimensional approach is always more practical if you're considering effective ways to govern a population.
this image also oversimplifies the problem so that any uneducated mother fucker thinks they have a valid opinion. stop blaming the people and blame your local system. it's all rigged and shit like this is made to divide us.
Giving workers rights over the fruits of their labor is communist? This is why teenbros need to fuck off from Sup Forums.
Yes, liberals hate that the real world has nuance and depth and attempt to make all arguments black and white. You support gun ownership? Obviously that means you want school children to die.
reading comprehension
I'm not that user, but you clearly are the retarded one here.
Giving workers rights over the fruits of their labor is communist?
It's socialist, but yes.
b8 pic
no vidya discussion
FUCK OFF OP, YOUR NIGGER ILK ISN'T WANTED HERE
SAGED AND REPORTED
Can someone edit the picture so C is black? Would make things more realistic.
The flute belongs to the person who made it, what kind of stupid choice is this?
Did that get taken to the Supreme Court?
Even if it did I wouldn't be surprised. One of our retired Supreme Court judges called for the repeal of the Second Amendment last week.
It's intentionally vague. How is a flute going to improve the life of C if he doesn't play it. If he's too poor to afford a flute, he's too poor for lessons. It's a cockamamie scenario.
. You support gun ownership? Obviously that means you want school children to die.
to be fair most crotchspawn are oxygen thieves who talk in cinemas and watch letsplays
all three of the kids seem cute
so I would just buy each of them their own flute
I kinda get the argument of A if it wasn't a flute, like if B owned something beneficial but was squandering it, but in the example is just a flute, so B gets it.
???
So you finished reading? Cause that's where I also stopped, because it was the last child.
No, the ownership was decided before the product was made
In this case there's usually a contract that shows the ownership
One of our retired Supreme Court judges called for the repeal of the Second Amendment last week.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
B > A > C
If payment were involved and B wanted to sell it, and therefore weren't involved, I'd go
A > C
C is a parasite and should go and make his own thing
Yes, liberals hate that the real world has nuance and depth and attempt to make all arguments black and white.
This can go the other way too.
You support gun regulation? Obviously that means you want to ban all guns.
Well B gets it of course. We can assume she didn't sell it, and even though she can't play it she made it for SOME reason. Whether or not it is shared is her decision.
No user, because you paid him to make you a flute, which is a contractual transaction and contracts are enforced by law.
write book so someone can read it
faggot snotty illiterate little shit takes it away from me because we wuz kangz n sheeeeit
he shits on it
Because child C can't afford a flute and for all we know A might not either. Could've spent all her money on flute lessons.
Besides, it's not like A will give B a share of any money she makes from her flute recitals.
How is it bait?
lacks information
A sane person would assume that such a contract doesn't exist, if it isn't mentioned.
go with B
make hundreds of flutes and waste the resources on it (flutes are made of wood) and there's just a pile of flutes lying in the corner being wasted and no one plays them cause no one can play them so it's just wasting resources for nothing
But we know B doesn't have it any longer because I am deciding who gets it. Some transaction has taken place and we need to understand that.
C makes me so mad. There are millions of people just like that. Giving nothing and expecting things in return.
There is only one solution, break the flute into three parts divided amongst the three equally
Do they? Any examples of this from major activists, not some random pink hair on twitter?
Why did child B make a flute they can't play?
Why does child A, who can play the flute, not already have one?
If Child C is so poor and miserable, why are they wasting their time arguing over a homemade flute made by a child which presumably has no monetary value?
Seems to me all these fuckers are lying and the flute is stolen. I confiscate it on behalf of the state and execute the three thieves for their trouble.
That'll teach 'em.
What is something B could actually own that left unused or used inefficiently would justify A being given it for the greater good because a flute isn't it.
girl makes flute
rip it out of her hands and give it to the girl who can play
rip it out of her hands and give it to a patheitc penniless dirt rag who can't even play
Or just leave the fucking flute maker alone?
Why is the opinion of a "major activist" more important than some random person? Laws are decided by majority.
I meant that OP's image purposely lacks details to make its readers to draw their own conclusions and cause arguments based on omitted facts
But yes rationally thought it's clear as a day
Can't see any reason that B shouldn't get it back. After then what she does with it is up to her.
If A has the money to buy a flute, she should offer to buy it from B. She doesn't get to spend her money and keep it, too.
Most libfags are unaware how MASSIVE an undertaking it is to remove shit from our Constitution. It would take 2/3 of Congress voting in favor of it, then 38/50 states voting for it.
Yes and he's trying to push his fundamentally wrong view of the 2A to argue "but people don't NEEED such dangerous guns!"
Child B should have the flute because she made it. What a stupid fucking picture.
Fighting over a flute
I take the thing and give them nothing, they're retarded children fighting over a shitty flute, no one gets what they want until they learn to behave.
people think the worker having ownership of the fruits of their labor is capitalist
A is trying to play on a privately produced contraband flute. B MADE the contraband unsanctioned flute. C is from good worker stock but covets the contraband as well. All three will be sent to the gulag, flute will be kept safe by secret police.
I dunno, if these are kids I think the implication is that you are a parent/teacher who has taken it away to stop their fighting.
greater good
Tell me, user
What qualifies you to determine what is or is not the greater good, and furthermore what gives you the authority to take decisions on behalf of others in its pursuit
What the fuck, I want the god damn flute. Im bigger, stronger and smarter than those three combined, they can get fucked
because they have exposure and their voice reaches many more people, influencing public opinion.
There's so many people on every side of an issue that you can easily cherrypick the most fringe element to show how supposedly crazy one side is.
Just like how you could probably find some retard ancap who wants people to own tanks and recreational nukes, you can also find some crazy pink hair that wants to ban thumbtacks.
So people only started interpreting the 2nd amendment correctly in the last decade?
But we know B doesn't have it any longer
Yes it has. Kid B made it, it's still his property. The picture tells you to decide, so until you make the decision, it's Kid B's.
I meant that OP's image purposely lacks details to make its readers to draw their own conclusions and cause arguments based on omitted facts
But yes rationally thought it's clear as a day
These statements contradict each other, user. You're supposed to make a decision based on the given information, not on information that you made up.
How the fuck are you just gonna take something from someone if they own it? Thats actual robbery.
Daily reminder if you pick Child B and voted for Trump you're unironically retarded.
He's using the fruits of your labor (tax money) to pay for multiple monthly trips to a golf club he owns, and charges the Secret Service to use it. The Secret Service wages and expenses are paid for by the citizens of the United States. For every trip he takes to Mar-A-Largo, your tax money goes directly into his pocket.
Child C should mad the fuck up and sell his ass for so cash. Gimmi gimmi gimmi PFT
retarded socialist doesn't understand the concept of marketing and capital organization
someone makes something
uses their own money and time to create it
fucking rob them to give to some shitters who want it
Why would you pick anyone but B? Sure A can play it, but it belongs to B, maybe she should try not being an ass so B will lend her it or some shit.
I didn't bother reading all of each entry, I just saw "I made the flute."
I pick middle child. Simple as that.
and charges the Secret Service to use it
The secret service is paid on an on demand basis?
I give Child B her flute back, give Child A a new flute and put Child C in prison for attempted armed robbery.
A is an entitled whiny millenial who wants everything to be served to her in a silver plate
B produces something of a value and contributes to the society
C is useless nigger who never produced anything and leeches off the state while wasting all resources spent on him
B should sell the flute to A for a reasonable price
If you give it to A then B benefits from it by being able to hear the music
If you give it to B then she's just wasting time and effort making flutes for nothing and not being able to hear the music which is the whole point of why a flute is being made
Secret Service has an annual budget and they write off the expenses to that
Commies are this stupid
If someone provided the materials for themselves and made a flute with them, it belongs to them.
If you're working in a flute factory making flutes, where the materials are provided by your employer, the tools are provided by your employer and your employer sells the flutes, they own the flute. The Employer is paying you for labor.
Commie logic is like you hiring someone to draw something for you, then afterwards they say "Nah it's mine I made it lol"
child B made the flute
somehow A and C gibsmedat are options
what the actual fuck, B owns what she made
she's just wasting time and effort making flutes for nothing
No, she's making flutes so someone like A pays her for one of the flutes.