11-01-2013, 07:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2013, 07:12 AM by Hammerskjold.)
But what does Lego taste like?
Also, do these building blocks assemble themselves, or do they point to a master assembler.
It really veers off into an intangible tangible about the nature of Free Willy Nilly does it not?
What else is there to say? After all, everyone is against stepping on scattered Legos which has not been put away properly.
Those things can jab your foot, and such unfortunate impacts can also damage the Lego structures.
At least, that's my opinion. And I do have an opinion on this topic, and it's my right to express them.
Have I seen the movie? In a roundabout way...well not quite. Have I seen the clip you're refering to?
Obviously that's not what we're really talking about here. But I have heard many others discuss the subject,
and I feel I am just as informed as anyone who has actually viewed said movie or clip.
It is both deconstructionist and reconstructionist tale woven with semiotic symbolism.
That's what the guy at Starbucks next to me said, and I agree.
(I never actually heard if the guy was talking about the same movie, but I feel it fits with the topic and my opinion.)
I also feel it is a movie with some problems. Lego blocks are made of plastic, therefore a petroleum product.
At least at this point in time. It is a high quality and long lasting polymer, though it brings yet another
important diverging point of the Oil Industry.
Should valuable non renewable resources be used for such a trivial matters as children's toys?
Or does the intrinsic quality and type of imaginative play offered by such 'toy' justifies such use?
Small Lego parts does pose a chocking hazard to young precious human babies. As well, there was
an incident where a sea container of Legos was accidentally lost at sea, and people have been finding
Lego parts on the shores for months. Aside from physical pollution, what about the marine life who can
mistake such plastic parts for food?
This also brings up another important and crucial point in my mind with Legos, Oil, and food production.
The price of Legos is not cheap, it is considered a premium brand with a matching price.
A family with a child wanting a lego set is looking at a fair chunk of their entertainment dollars to be eaten.
Depending on the size and type of Lego set he\she wants. Lego Technics for example, can be quite pricey.
Can such cost be justified if it means monies can be put to other use such as savings, food?
And this is just in terms of dollars. Again, what about the use of our dwindling non renewable resource to create these blocks?
I feel and it is my opinion that the topic of gender roles in toys are outside of the original topic and discussion.
But I feel it must be addressed, since we are talking about it now.
Lego has surprisingly faltered in more than a few occasions with a 1950's Leave it To Beaver revisionist culture that never was,
with their use of 'Pink Lego for Girls' sets. This is very disturbing since Legos were, and should continue to be a toy
that encourages imagination in both sexes and open play.
Not to mention, and again, I have an opinion on the matter that must be expressed. Lego has shown an increasing trend towards pre-built 'closed set' imaginative play mentality vs their previous 'open set' philosophy.
This is self evident when you compared the types of Lego sets being offered today, vs 10 years ago. Previous sets included multi-use parts that can be combined into the diagrams that was included in the box, or re-combined into whatever the builder wishes. The only limitations aside from the obvious physical dimensions and specifications, are the young and young at heart architects imagination.
Contemporary sets includes more and more custom pieces that goes well only with the included plan in the box, and requires less and less input from the player. Is this by design or neglect, or something more nefarious at hand? Just what is the CEO of Lego making in terms of hyper inflated feduciary bonii vs the proletariat workers and engineers who actually creates and operates the means of production, to make these literal building blocks of the imagination?
Furthermore I should also addres-
/Stop for a second young man. Have you actually seen this movie for your movie review and discussion? <---nightmare version of my school teacher.
The 9th grade version of me who has to give a report, but I feel I can wing it with my special snowflake intelligence and propensity to question things that other plebes take at face value then said:
' That depends on what you mean by 'seeing', sir. I'll refer and defer to the Allegory of the Cave by Plato which states a hypothesis, or what laymen would erroneously calls a 'Theory' of-'
Teacher: Young man, a simple yes\no would do. Are you just trying to run out the clock?
Me: No sir, I'm doing the presentation assignment, I'm just expressing my right to inform the class of my opinion on the subject matter. But since you mentioned time, that is also a relevant point to the topic I'd like to-
Teacher: Please take your seat. Now.
Me:....Heh. (Aced it!1111)
Teacher:....takes out the red pen. 'Grade for assignment: d.
Also, do these building blocks assemble themselves, or do they point to a master assembler.
It really veers off into an intangible tangible about the nature of Free Willy Nilly does it not?
What else is there to say? After all, everyone is against stepping on scattered Legos which has not been put away properly.
Those things can jab your foot, and such unfortunate impacts can also damage the Lego structures.
At least, that's my opinion. And I do have an opinion on this topic, and it's my right to express them.
Have I seen the movie? In a roundabout way...well not quite. Have I seen the clip you're refering to?
Obviously that's not what we're really talking about here. But I have heard many others discuss the subject,
and I feel I am just as informed as anyone who has actually viewed said movie or clip.
It is both deconstructionist and reconstructionist tale woven with semiotic symbolism.
That's what the guy at Starbucks next to me said, and I agree.
(I never actually heard if the guy was talking about the same movie, but I feel it fits with the topic and my opinion.)
I also feel it is a movie with some problems. Lego blocks are made of plastic, therefore a petroleum product.
At least at this point in time. It is a high quality and long lasting polymer, though it brings yet another
important diverging point of the Oil Industry.
Should valuable non renewable resources be used for such a trivial matters as children's toys?
Or does the intrinsic quality and type of imaginative play offered by such 'toy' justifies such use?
Small Lego parts does pose a chocking hazard to young precious human babies. As well, there was
an incident where a sea container of Legos was accidentally lost at sea, and people have been finding
Lego parts on the shores for months. Aside from physical pollution, what about the marine life who can
mistake such plastic parts for food?
This also brings up another important and crucial point in my mind with Legos, Oil, and food production.
The price of Legos is not cheap, it is considered a premium brand with a matching price.
A family with a child wanting a lego set is looking at a fair chunk of their entertainment dollars to be eaten.
Depending on the size and type of Lego set he\she wants. Lego Technics for example, can be quite pricey.
Can such cost be justified if it means monies can be put to other use such as savings, food?
And this is just in terms of dollars. Again, what about the use of our dwindling non renewable resource to create these blocks?
I feel and it is my opinion that the topic of gender roles in toys are outside of the original topic and discussion.
But I feel it must be addressed, since we are talking about it now.
Lego has surprisingly faltered in more than a few occasions with a 1950's Leave it To Beaver revisionist culture that never was,
with their use of 'Pink Lego for Girls' sets. This is very disturbing since Legos were, and should continue to be a toy
that encourages imagination in both sexes and open play.
Not to mention, and again, I have an opinion on the matter that must be expressed. Lego has shown an increasing trend towards pre-built 'closed set' imaginative play mentality vs their previous 'open set' philosophy.
This is self evident when you compared the types of Lego sets being offered today, vs 10 years ago. Previous sets included multi-use parts that can be combined into the diagrams that was included in the box, or re-combined into whatever the builder wishes. The only limitations aside from the obvious physical dimensions and specifications, are the young and young at heart architects imagination.
Contemporary sets includes more and more custom pieces that goes well only with the included plan in the box, and requires less and less input from the player. Is this by design or neglect, or something more nefarious at hand? Just what is the CEO of Lego making in terms of hyper inflated feduciary bonii vs the proletariat workers and engineers who actually creates and operates the means of production, to make these literal building blocks of the imagination?
Furthermore I should also addres-
/Stop for a second young man. Have you actually seen this movie for your movie review and discussion? <---nightmare version of my school teacher.
The 9th grade version of me who has to give a report, but I feel I can wing it with my special snowflake intelligence and propensity to question things that other plebes take at face value then said:
' That depends on what you mean by 'seeing', sir. I'll refer and defer to the Allegory of the Cave by Plato which states a hypothesis, or what laymen would erroneously calls a 'Theory' of-'
Teacher: Young man, a simple yes\no would do. Are you just trying to run out the clock?
Me: No sir, I'm doing the presentation assignment, I'm just expressing my right to inform the class of my opinion on the subject matter. But since you mentioned time, that is also a relevant point to the topic I'd like to-
Teacher: Please take your seat. Now.
Me:....Heh. (Aced it!1111)
Teacher:....takes out the red pen. 'Grade for assignment: d.