BrickG Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Now imagine if you had written Kenner back then with the helpful suggestion of "Princess Leia needs much much bigger boobs dudes!" Would they have rushed to respond to this helpful constructive suggestion? Or immediately categorized you as some sort of deviant weirdo plastic pervert, and forwarded all further correspondence to their legal and security departments? That's practically the definition of a straw man argument. I say boobs wouldn't be bad on Legos. You create an example which cannot be compared to that realistically with the "Leia needs much much bigger boobs". The two are not related, comparable and it's an informal fallacy because it misrepresents the original argument. Edited January 25, 2013 by BrickG
GregoryBrick Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 It strikes me there's two arguments being confused here: 1) Whether there's something wrong with children being exposed to female anatomy (specifically the breast), including through their toys 2a) Whether LEGO should alter the minifigure to represent the female breast as in the OP 2b) Whether LEGO is wrong to find those alterations 'inappropriate' I think it could certainly be inappropriate for LEGO to alter the minifigure in such a way, because I cannot think of any 'appropriate' reasons for doing so. The defense of 'realism' fails because it's awfully selective - why the female breast and not other aspects of anatomy, or of other secondary (or even primary) sexual characteristics? The claim that the female breast is the most distinctive or distinguishing feature between men and women is also rather extravagant - I'm willing to bet clothes, hair, and voice rank highest (and LEGO already addresses the first two, so there you go). I find it inappropriate because it is such a peculiar request with very little or no benefit; I cannot understand the motivations of the proposal. I remain open to having my mind changed.
BrickG Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 1) It strikes me there's two arguments being confused here: 1) Whether there's something wrong with children being exposed to female anatomy (specifically the breast), including through their toys 2a) Whether LEGO should alter the minifigure to represent the female breast as in the OP 2b) Whether LEGO is wrong to find those alterations 'inappropriate' I think it could certainly be inappropriate for LEGO to alter the minifigure in such a way, because I cannot think of any 'appropriate' reasons for doing so. The defense of 'realism' fails because it's awfully selective - why the female breast and not other aspects of anatomy, or of other secondary (or even primary) sexual characteristics? The claim that the female breast is the most distinctive or distinguishing feature between men and women is also rather extravagant - I'm willing to bet clothes, hair, and voice rank highest (and LEGO already addresses the first two, so there you go). I find it inappropriate because it is such a peculiar request with very little or no benefit; I cannot understand the motivations of the proposal. I remain open to having my mind changed. 1) No. Nothing is wrong. No evidence to suggest that there is anything wrong. Breasts are kid friendly (in the right context, not talking porn of course :P). If anyone thinks otherwise they're wrong. Simple as that. Kids don't get corrupt or anything from their Princess Leia and April O'neill action figures. 2a) Should they? IMO they shouldn't. This is more about their stupid response as it being "inappropriate" which seems to suggest they find the boobs themselves inappropriate. Which goes counter to their own toys and has absolutely no basis in Facts (like Fox News ). How they refused it is the argument. 2b) It matters how they mean "inappropriate". But from what it sounds like it's because boobs... which is dumb. They should have went with other reasoning. For example, my personal reasoning for not wanting it is the following: 1) Chest modifiers suddenly don't fit. You could bring up that they've been letting head modifiers not fit for a while, but for the most part those are for special characters that you wouldn't put them on anyways. Like who would put hair on a Ninja Turtle? Though I admit I have wanted to put on a helmet or something... Also IMO Chima goes too far which basically every head being a sculpt (being on top of a real head but they're ugly and obviously an afterthought). 2) I just don't think it's necessary. Boobs are represented okay right now. If anything the BIGGER problem is the 18:1 male/female minifigure ratio which is ridiculous. On the other hand I wouldn't mind terribly if they added boobs but I'm okay without them. I think the motivation is simply to get a somewhat more accurate gender representation. It's just an option that some people can find appealing, not for sexual reasons or anything, but just because (basically). People who aren't as attached to the iconic minifigure probably wouldn't mind seeing changes like that. Though for me I'd rather see arms that could move side to side first :P.
GregoryBrick Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 [snip]I think the motivation is simply to get a somewhat more accurate gender representation. It's just an option that some people can find appealing, not for sexual reasons or anything, but just because (basically). I snipped your response because I already read what your positions are; the point wasn't to go over them again (they've already been responded to by others) but to suggest that future commentary keep these different matters from being conflated. Perhaps I was unclear. As for the bolded text, if the best defense of the project is "just because, basically", I don't think it's in good faith to complain about opacity in LEGO's interpretation of the project.
Governor Mister Phes Posted January 25, 2013 Governor Posted January 25, 2013 Honestly it's not really incorrect in the USA. Language is language. It is incorrect everywhere, using "LEGOs" is like someone mispronouncing your name intentionally and then finding a non-reason to justify it. Assuming they're aware of the mistake. If you wish to remain ignorant that's your prerogative, but the YouTube video was a formal study so the researcher(s) should get the brand name correct for the sake of their credibility.
BrickG Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 It is incorrect everywhere, using "LEGOs" is like someone mispronouncing your name intentionally and then finding a non-reason to justify it. Assuming they're aware of the mistake. If you wish to remain ignorant that's your prerogative, but the YouTube video was a formal study so the researcher(s) should get the brand name correct for the sake of their credibility. Nope. It's "legos" here everywhere but official Lego stores that have it hammered in their employee's minds. Language is regional even within the same language. Owners of trademarks often try to enforce or encourage a specific way to say their trademark but that doesn't dictate the language. Legos is used almost exclusively in some areas, specifically in North America. And it's used far far more than it's alternatives that others think of as the "correct" usage. The Lego Group has been very strict trying to get people to refer to their product as Lego Bricks or Lego Toys and not LEGOS purely with the motivation of protecting their trademark. However, they can't control language. If you say "legos" you are not grammatically incorrect, you're just not doing what a company wants you to do. It is in fact grammatically correct to say it either way. It's just one way is safer for the parent company. The word "legos" has come to mean in the USA "lego bricks" and there's nothing Lego or you can do about it because it's language. It's not incorrect. That's propaganda. It would be like me saying "colour" is NOT a word because only "color" is. In the USA for 99% of the kids out there Legos are any of the lego stuff that a lego set comes with. You might not agree with that, but again, companies don't dictate languages. Grammatically it's correct. It might not be friendly to the trademarks and might not fit with your view of Lego but it's language and it doesn't freakin' matter no offense :P. Legos is correct here in the US (possibly Canada too Idunno) and I don't mind it.
Governor Mister Phes Posted January 25, 2013 Governor Posted January 25, 2013 It is in fact grammatically correct to say it either way.[...]Legos is correct here in the US (possibly Canada too Idunno) and I don't mind it. That's your incorrect opinion, thank you for sharing it, now lets get this thread back on topic.
CorneliusMurdock Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 This topic has run it's course, I believe. I think I have to close it. Sorry folks.
Recommended Posts