Episodic Gaming

[David E]

Originally Posted by yoshimickster

I'm sorry I just don't like them ethically. Personally for that toy-drive thing they do. I have my reasons for not liking toy-drives trust me. It may be for a sick kid, but it was also probably MADE by a sick kid-IN CHINA! If PvP had episodic gaming, probly wouldn't buy it seeing how they don't really do much in that comic anymore. I miss Skull.

Yoshi, I really don't think you're going to be able to convince many here of your viewpoint; could we please stick to the topic at hand, rather than derailing into discussions of the goodness of Child's Play or quality of web comics?

[yoshimickster]

Gotcha! So, any episodic games about like oh I don't know-GARLIC! No seriously, if you see something as silly as that tell me, I like silly things.

[TrogLlama]

Originally Posted by yoshimickster

I'm sorry I just don't like them ethically. Personally for that toy-drive thing they do. I have my reasons for not liking toy-drives trust me. It may be for a sick kid, but it was also probably MADE by a sick kid-IN CHINA! If PvP had episodic gaming, probly wouldn't buy it seeing how they don't really do much in that comic anymore. I miss Skull.

Now, I don't want to derail the topic any further, but my illogic senses are tingling.
I think that this can be described as an application of the argument to perfection in a sense, but let's break down the reasoning to see if we can't find a more concrete description.
1. Child's Play gives toys to children.
2. Toys are made by poor Chinese children.
3. Poor Chinese children making things is bad.
4. Therefore, Child's Play is bad.
I think we could construct an argument against this in terms of the 'appeal to perfection' fallacy; we shouldn't do it because it doesn't help the children making the toys. This doesn't seem quite right to me, and I think we can find a better one.
A quick trip to Wikipedia finds us this little gem: the perfect solution fallacy.
If we're discussing in terms of this fallacy, which is highly related to the one mentioned above yet closer to the true error in your reasoning, we can structure this argument like this:
Argument: Child's Play does not help all children and therefore should not be done.
Rebuttal: It may not help certain children, but it does help some children, and that's better than helping no children.

In a more general sense, this argument also stems from the appeal to emotion ("MADE by a sick kid- IN CHINA").

To put a conclusion to this overly long ramble on why some guy on the internet is wrong, the simple fact of the matter is that giving toys to poor children has nothing to does not hurt the poor children making the toys more than not giving toys to poor children. I even have my doubts of the veracity of the claim, but I haven't done my research into the matter either and will not attempt to make a factual claim on this. Your argument seems to be that we should concern ourselves with the other children, and while there may be some truth to this it's an entirely different matter altogether and has nothing to do with toy drives.

(And let's let this be the end of this, okay? I really don't want to derail this any further, but I couldn't resist.)

[tabacco]

And this thread is over.