Archive through September 16, 2002
TV ClubHouse: Archives: Game. Not a Game... Game? Not a Game. (ARCHIVE):
Archive through September 16, 2002
Bigd | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 06:22 am     Tobor7 - somthing we TOTALLY agree on. You said in your above post - "We need more people with better character in key positions" - ROCK ON! At work, at church, in politics, in schools, everywhere. But character, like beauty, is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. |
Wcv63 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 06:33 am     Annitar I agree with your post and stated much those same points in posts of my own. Therefore you must be an incredibly intelligent and insightful human being. Gambit, thank you so much to the link to that article. It defines so much of what was being discussed on this thread that I'm surprised it didn't garner more responses. I particularly thought this statement from that article was interesting: "Albert Z. Carr famously argued that "the ethics of business are game ethics, different from the ethics of religion." He wrote: "I think it is fair to say that if the individual executive refuses to bluff from time to time--if he feels obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth--he is ignoring opportunities permitted under the rules and is at a heavy disadvantage in his business dealings." The late management thinker Benjamin Selekman wrote that to expect executives to live the Judeo-Christian ethic in any literal sense would be to put them "into a situation of perpetual sinfulness." (Asked what executives should do about it, Selekman is said to have offered this riposte: "Sin bravely.")" Romans the above quote goes toward proving your point. I enjoy your posts because you always seem to bring yet another layer of interest to the discussion. Tobor: I agree that our viewpoints are widely divergent and not in any danger of intersecting at any given point on this issue. However I must say that to discuss lying, cheating, stealing and ethics and then tell someone later that the topic isn't about morals is confusing to me. Your statement regarding true character does beg the answer about existing morals and ethics in the current crop of houseguests. I also believe that your insistance on calling every opinion that doesn't agree with yours an "excuse" to be quite maddening. I'll get over it though. It's not in my character to hold a grudge. Oregonfire, I also fall on the side of relative moralism. A man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family, while still technically a thief has a defensible reason that goes to the greater good of keeping hungry children healthy. |
Gidget | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 06:37 am     Whew, heavy!!! Now I am getting ready to duck. LOL What in the heck did they houseguests do that was so horrible that they are now branded as despicable human beings??? Junior high mentality bashing... he doesn't wash his hands, she's a sl*t, you promised to vote for me and you lied... so on and so on. Who hasn't at one time or another engaged in these behaviors? Who hasn't sucked up to curry favor? Who hasn't gone along with "mob" mentality to protect oneself? And if we are all honest with ourselves we have all done these things for a lot less than $500K. Who hasn't lied to save face? Come on. He who is without sin should cast the first stone. Otherwise, sh*t*p |
Romans8_1 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 07:04 am     "He who is without sin should cast the first stone" This is probably one of the most used, out of context verses, in the Bible. The verse is was meant in the context of judging/condemning others while you do the same. In that sense you are correct in using it. BUT, it doesn't mean that we are not to call people on their behaviour. There are many verses that tell us we are to be a light in the darkness. Light will always illuminate darkness and by the fact that light exists, it will judge the darkness. We don't know their heart and cannot take away their salvation (if indeed they have it), but we are called to live Godly lives and are called to love our neighbor. Do I love my neighbor if I let him play in the road? No. We are called to help them, but the key is to do it in love. |
Gidget | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 07:05 am     OK how about judge not lest ye be judged? |
Romans8_1 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 07:29 am     "OK how about judge not lest ye be judged? " Same context. We are not to judge in the sense that God judges, but we are to care for our fellow man in love. If someone is engaging in behavior that is detrimental to their relationship with God and to themselves, then if we love them, we will call them on it and help them. I could give you many verses where we are called to do this, but then we just get into a Bible verse throwing compitition. Unless you understand context, verses are meaningless. People have found verses that prove that smoking pot is ok. If someone ignores context, then they can find a verse to prove anything. Don't get me wrong ... I agree with you to a certain degree. We far too often judge others while we engage in the same activity. Yes there are many hipocrits in the world. All I am saying is that there is a difference between judging in the context of these two verses and calling one on their behavior to help them. Sometimes we can call someone on their behavior in the BB3 framework in hopeing to help someone who is reading the boards. We may not be judging those in the house, as much as we are trying to help someone reading the boards who may be engaging in the same activity. There is a difference between the action and the person. A saved person will still engage in unhealthy actions. Unfortunately we are saved from the power/penalty of sin, but not the presence of it. Again, don't get me wrong. Whenever I if/have called someone on their behavior, I never do it in the context of taking their salvation away (if indeed they have it), but in the sense that their behavior is not representative of a healthy relationship with the Lord, and hence detrimental to themselves. Am I without sin? Of course not. Does that mean I cannot help my fellow man? Of course not. If you saw your blind-folded family member walking over the side of a cliff would you warn them? I don't know if any of this make sense, but I've heard it once put ... "To those who believe, no explanation is necessary. To those who do not believe, no explanation is possible." I pray this is not true. God bless. |
Niceguy | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:08 am     I agree, the game is an artificial construct. It places more pressure on the competitors than normal circumstances. The jury is another construct. It determines who should win the entire game by how the individual members of the jury envision how the game should be played. Grace under pressure. All games have incorporated a certain level of grace since man started playing games. Once grace is eliminated you're heading down a negative and destructive road. Danielle has demonstrated a shocking lack of grace. I think the difference between the Dani-admirers vs. Dani-despisers is the difference between looking short view and long view. I'm not saying under Danielle's given personal circumstances that short view isn't good for her. It will help her get the house. Living with what strangers who watch the show think about her and who might have to make a decision about her regarding her career aspirations is something else. Thats long view. All that said it is a trial(of sorts)for the HEARTS and MINDS of the jurors. In and out of the game. |
Gidget | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:15 am     You're right. Swapping Bible verses is silly. But while I am usually a calm, fair minded person, nothing gets my ire up more than someone outside of my immediate family thinking they have the right to call me on any behavior unless it is affecting them directly. You could count on me losing all manner of civility in such a scenario. |
Wcv63 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:29 am     Niceguy although I agree with some of your post the question being posed is whether the houseguests true character is being exposed by their actions within this artificial environment. My take is that, no, the artifice and extreme nature of the environment combined with the gameplaying aspect of the contest does not lend itself to a "true reveal." It's all good and well to say to "grace under pressure" but grace under pressure in an artificial environment while being denied access to the things/people most important in your life is not quite the same thing. |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:31 am     "It's interesting, really. A poster above who agrees with you states that they "cannot accept that these 12 people entered the house and immediately adopted brand new personalities that were not indicative of who they already were." However, when such statements were made about Roddy in the threads analyzing his game play, said poster disagreed when some posters were suggesting that Roddy's behavior in the house may "possibly" be the same outside of the house. In addition, said poster stated it was not right and inappropriate. " I am the poster that is being referred to above. What this person posted about me is an outright LIE. I am not responding directly to her because I promised the mods I would not rise to her baiting me anymore, but I will not sit here and accept LIES about what I posted in the past. |
Niceguy | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:34 am     You're left with your HEART and your MIND. That's what you start with and that's what you're left with in this life. IMO. |
Earthmother | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:36 am     I think one thing Marc said in many of his speeches was that "perception" of wrong doing will be one's demise" and I believe that to be true in real life as well. These people went into that house playing a role (at least some did, and some had no clue why they were going in). They based their strategy for winning on pretending to be someone they are not. Although I agree that all of them at some point become themselves I still believe much of what we see is role playing. When anyone has to remind themselves to be nice or be mean then it can't be a true picture of them. Semantics play a huge part of everyday life and I don't see it being different in this competition. You can tell yourself that's not what it meant, but you can't convince others if they have been hurt by it. The thing that most people don't realize is that "perception" will follow them to the real world. Have you ever heard a villian from a Soap Opera tell stories about people yelling at them and saying vile things to them because of what their character does on the show? I realize these actors are scripted and playing someone who could be completely out of character for them, but many fans can't seperate the two. IMO a lot of the crying we see from the hgs is because they have done things that are not condusive of their true personality and the conflict is very hard for them. Jason said "it's getting hard now because I may have to do things I'm not comfortable doing" and I truly believe this. I think we see a lot of role playing and a lot of true personality, but if I don't personally know these people then I can't tell you which is which. |
Wcv63 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 08:46 am     I'm not sure if your reply was in answer to my post Niceguy but for the sake of argument I'll say that it is. If, for example, one lives their life ethically and morally on a daily basis but are suddenly are placed in a situation where it truly is "survival of the fittest", and if that person should succumb to lying and double dealing while placed in that situation, does that mean that the person's true character has been revealed? To go one step further, that person is placed in a role in the specific situation referenced. A role assigned both by a governing entity and themself. If they should revert to their former ethical and moral way of life after the artificial situation is concluded, has a flaw in their character been established? I'm sure I'm not making myself understood because frankly I'm having a hard time even understanding myself right now. P.S. SanFran...I always enjoy your posts and feel you have nothing to defend yourself against. Your reputation speaks for itself. |
Sanfranjoshfan | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:14 am     Wcv63 - "If, for example, one lives their life ethically and morally on a daily basis but are suddenly are placed in a situation where it truly is "survival of the fittest", and if that person should succumb to lying and double dealing while placed in that situation, does that mean that the person's true character has been revealed?" If I look at Jason in this scenario I would have to say "yes". Yes, he has done his share of misdirection, but I don't think that is out of line with what his character seems to be. He is a kind, upstanding, honest young man who is playing a ruthless game.....yet he is playing it in a kind, upstanding way. I've watched him when he is asked a direct question and I have seen him lie. It is NOT an easy thing for him....every time that happens, Jason is put into a moral dilemma and it makes for a very difficult moment for jason. For some of the others (like Dani), it seems that lying comes very easily and it doesn't seem to be attached to a moral dilemma at all. When it comes up, she looks the person right in the eye and lies without hesitation or nervousness. What I deduce from this is that someone who lies easily and well has had plenty of practice lying. That practice is life experience that was learned outside the house and is being used inside the house. My point is not that this is right or wrong behavior *in the game*....this is a game in which lying is allowed. My point is just that for these underhanded type traits to so easily rise to the surface, then I believe that they were already present (just *beneath* the surface) to begin with. JMO Btw, Wcv63 - thanks! |
Niceguy | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:18 am     Being that this is an 24/7 exhibition of human behavior under certain prescribed guidelines, agreed to by the particpants for one of them to achieve a certain goal, yes, we are seeing their true natures. They sleep, eat, get inebriated, concoct schemes and conspire to achieve that goal. Once they leave the house their lives will be different. That is an unavoidable fact of life, even first evictees MEGA, Sheryl and now Lori experience this. Would this forum say MEGA was just in the game? Or Justin? We're seeing the real Danielle. Danielle has directed herself better to fit within the guidelines to get at least to the final three. It remains to be seen if she makes final two. |
Bohawkins | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:36 am     The problem I sometimes have with moral relativism is that those who claim to ascribe to its tenets are often using it to excuse their lack of adherence to any real moral code which would keep them from doing whatever they want when it satisfies their own self requirements. However, I am a moral relativist to a great extent, because there are times when individuals are faced with the classic moral dilemma. There are indeed times when a promise should be broken. Hypothetical situations can be constructed which illustrate circumstances when deception and dishonoring one's word is warranted. I promise to return a borrowed gun from my neighbor who asks for it back so that he can kill his children. I lie and tell him I lost it. Breaking a promise and telling a lie would indeed be laudable. Is the value perceived by the benefit from the action sufficient to warrant the action in the face of its consequences? Each person for themselves must come to an understanding of his own boundaries. Each must define; what is a transgression? A simple defininition of sin might be any selfish act which harms another. However, there are times when even with this construct, the moral dilemma is posed where an act which benefits me, and harms you, enables an eventual greater good for others, and in doing so would be justified. A thing is intrinsically good when it is valued for itself, and not merely as an instrument or means to some further end. However, if there is an inference and an evolution to that intrinisic good, then an act, which seems repugnant could be made holy by its consequential results. The adage of judge not, is relevant even in the big brother house if we are to examine the actions of lies and broken promises in terms beyond our cursory examination of the current circumstance. While money in and of itself cannot be assigned any intrinsic value from a philosophical standpoint if it resulted in great benefit to others beyond our superficial understanding, even in a distant future, then the simple transgressions would indeed be contributory to the highest level of intrinsic good. It is our lack of overall understanding of unseen events as yet unrealized in the time continuum which causes us to be ill equipped to stand in judgement of the evil nature of even one of the lies told in the big brother house. This is especially true when considering the probability of possible horrible consequences in parallel circumstances where an alternate outcome might have been realized if the truth had been told. Only a God's eye view would give us such a perspective. |
Wcv63 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:49 am     Bo, good post. If I understood your meaning a quick summary would be that since we don't know these people we really can't judge their actions from a place of total understanding. |
Bohawkins | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 09:58 am     Wcv63... thanks... yes, you are correct. Also, we don't know the probabilities of the future for any of them. |
Bohawkins | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 10:03 am     Take a look at this thread... It's entitled: Kent's opinion of some pivotal events ../10972/1052884.html?1032195533 Kent (from BB2) addresses this issue directly. |
Niceguy | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 10:42 am     Unfortunately, humans make assessments on the fly and by our nature have to go with the information we've been presented with. With experience we learn how to separate what may be false or extraneous information. |
Wrat1010 | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 10:43 am     Thanks, Bo. |
Wendo | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 11:31 am     Tobor7 said, "Wendo-- I'm not talking about any specific player here. My comments are for them all." Well, re-read your first post Tobor. Because, though you don't name a specific player, it's apparent that you are referring to Dani. Most, if not all, your quotes in your first post were uttered by Dani. As another poster wrote, I think your dislike of her is coloring your opinions. So be it. "As far as my answer being "a child's answer"? Now I suppose that is a slight personal attack isn't it? (I have so many answers for this one, I'll just have to get back to you.)" No, it was not a personal attack. Please don't take it that way, it was not meant to be insulting; it's merely a phrase. I'm merely saying that your answer was simplistic and an insufficient answer to the question posed. (Nor have you yet answered it.) An example would be when a child breaks a vase and their parent asks the child, How did this vase break? The child says, I don't know. That is a child's answer, it doesn't address the question fully and, in a sense, deflects the question so one doesn't have to answer it. "The Roddy stuff-- I can't take responsibility for someone else's posts. So don't put it off on me." I wasn't asking you to take responsibility for it nor trying to put it off on you. It was nothing more than an illustration of how people's positions and opinions change with respect to certain HG's. That, were seeing Dani's true character, but not Roddy's. (To add...SanFran, I was not trying to bait you in any way, shape, or form. Honestly I wasn't. I was recalling in the past when some people posted that (pp) "Roddy manipulates the HG's weaknesses, he probably does it in real life so run for hills" or that his emotional attacks on Amy resulting in her being reduced to tears says a lot about him outside of the house, that there were MANY objections to stating such things about who Roddy is in real life. However, since you refute that you said such things, I apologize to you personally for recalling inaccurately. Finally, I wish that we could be able to debate without tension. I have been actively trying and I've made every effort to respect your posts and opinions. Again, I apologize sincerely for the misrepresentation in my earlier post. It was in no way intentional. I don't know what more I can say, other than I'm trying to extend an olive branch here and move past the differences we had in the past. I certainly hope you'll consider it in the sincerity it's being offered.) Back on topic: "I never defined each of the HG's character. I said character was exposed and it was a true representation. That they could not HIDE it... again, I'm not going to re-state everything again here. If you didn't understand my post and the others in support of it, then I do not think there is anything I can add to help you." Tobor, it's apparent that we completely disagree and it's obvious that we are not going to come together and form a consensus. IMO, I don't believe that you can say you see these people's true characters. I just don't. I don't think you're being fair to them considering the situation they're in. And, as I said, I think it's rather arrogant of us to sit in judgement of them by claiming that who they are in the house is who they are in real life. I don't "need help" in understanding your post. I get it, I just disagree. Finally, I feel it's patronizing to suggest that I don't understand your comments when in actuality I'm just disagreeing with your statements, reasoning, and your expressed moral authority. "If you think you are right about the HG's exposed character then you have as much to go on as I do. Your observation is as valid as mine. I guess time will tell. Or we may never know. Let's just pay attention to all the excuses flying around and we'll see what happens." I suppose the differences I see is that I don't assert my position as "fact" where as you do. Your first post is full of them. You start by saying that "You believe", but by the end of your post, it's THEY ARE; you are making statements of fact. I take into account that there are extenuating circumstances, a game being played, and the like. To say with absolute authority that who they are in the house is who they are outside of the house is, imo, as Annitar said, absurd. In addition, I agree with Eden's post as well. She explained it much better than I have. Also, I'd like to answer your questions posed to Annitar. "1st, do you think we are seeing the HG's true character at this point in the game? Do you think they are able to hide their character for this long?" No, not seeing true characters. Yes, they are able to keep their characters "hidden", because the game is continual and the pressures of the game and the eventual qwest to the end keeps the players in game mode. "2nd, do you think they are any different (in their decision making process and how they go about things) outside of the house?" Yes, because, again, they are in a specific circumstance that requires specific types of decisions and thought processes one would not encounter in real life. "3rd, using your life experience and how you assess the HG's character, don't you think you have met people just like them in your life." No, because, I have not met people playing a game such as this in real life. Have I met people who lie and deceive, sure. But, that doesn't mean that the 12 HG are these people because they've utilized tactics that one deems morally reprehensible with in the construct of the game. "4th, do you really believe that they think it is a game or are they just using it as an excuse for actions that usually have no excuse?" Yes, they believe it is a game. They knew it when they signed up because, according to their bios, they each came up with strategies to win the game. Why bother if you don't feel you're entering a game? The game is dictating their actions so that they can advance to the end. Like I said, why have a strategy if your purpose is to not win the game? Anyway, Tobor, we just fundamentally disagree. No doubt about it. So be it. Gambit, thanks for the links, very interesting and informative. |
Groucho | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 11:49 am     Tobor said, "I'm saying the excuses start small then move up the ladder to bigger things. Sooner or later you can come up with some sort of excuse for anything you want to do." So you're saying that because I cheat at solitaire, sooner or later I'm going to be lying and cheating left and right, in pursuit of my own ends, without regard to morality? I just don't buy this argument. You seem to see all moral issues in stark black-and-white terms. But the world is not divided in to "those who lie" and "those who don't lie". Everybody lies, at certain times, to a greater or lesser extent, for various reasons. What matters is the context. And the context here is the game of Big Brother. A completely artificial situation. One that is intentionally set up to encourage deception and manipulation. It's not real life and it's not the workplace. To say that we can extrapolate from someone's deceptions and lies in the context of playing the game seems as wrong to me as saying that someone who cheats at solitaire has revealed their true character. |
Oregonfire | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 12:02 pm     I think the logic goes the other way as well: If I give a homeless man a dollar the street, does that mean that I'll go and give half of my earnings to charity? Does my giving away a dollar mean that I'm an altruist? Maybe if I'm homeless myself and it was my last dollar. But giving a dollar may be pretty stingy if you're a millionaire. There are varying degrees and conditions of altruism, just like there are varying degrees of thievery. |
Niceguy | Monday, September 16, 2002 - 12:12 pm     Thank you Oregon. These discussions in here are getting difficult to keep one's perspective straight. The thing that I find most memorable is watching a live feed of Danielle in the dark, alone, praying to God to help her get rid of The Devil. Who's benefit was that for? Was that not the real Danielle in that moment praying to her deity? Is that part of the game? |
|