Andres, for someone who complains about other posters being monotonous, you sure do repeat yourself a lot, without actually advancing the discussion. This is the third time you're posted the stuff below without responding to questions about it.
No what I said was "You said "Who gives a damn about the model? She's a model paid to do a job. (As a reminder, this makes you sound like a ******). She was not just a model, this is false, hence why I told you that she also sang that rather lovely piece, and was also the voice actress for Quiet. Credit where credit is due, to do otherwise is to be rude, you don't seem to have a concept of rudeness it's rather disturbing."
I can keep reposting the questions as long as you want to keep ducking them. To reiterate: first, why does the fact that the model did other things make her any more relevant to the topic? She wasn't relevant as just a model, and she isn't any more relevant as a model/VA/singer. Second, why should I give a damn about her? Do you give a damn about Vanderloo or whoever the hell modelled for Liara? If so, why?
It occurs to me that we may be operating from different definitions of "giving a damn." I'm leaving Joosten in the same category as all the other billions of people I've never heard of, have no relationship with, and in all likelihood will never meet. Why should she be in any other category?
And out of idle curiosity, why do you keep talking about how my attitude disturbs you and that I sound like a ********? Surely this can't be of any interest to anybody. It's getting a little.... wait for it ... monotonous.
You keep alternating from calling Quiet and MGS itslef fan service, without explain what you mean. You just say "it is, therefore it is!"
I said I agreed with the IGN guys. You mean you didn't understand their position either?
I don't think you even know what silly means. Silliness has always been important in literature, it shows people getting some enjoyment out of life by rebelling against the depressing quagmire that life mostly consists of. Stupidity is something else; it is usually something illogical that winds up getting another person hurt. Silliness, if intentional, is good intentioned, and even if it is spontaneous it is always innocent. I gave you famous literary examples that are celebrated for their silliness, P.G Wodehous' writing is rather silly. People actually used to celebrate the silliness in Metal Gear.
Surely you're not saying that silliness always works, are you? Look at this thread -- the rain scene is inspiring derisive contempt, not joy. Silliness isn't always a good thing; it depends on the implementation.
I've already explained this: "Any dialogue that deals with how people 'express themselves' e.g. what someone wears etc., is already dealing with morals, it becomes an 'issue' when someone tries to tell someone else how they should or should not express themselves."
You're repeating yourself again. That wasn't an explanation the first time, and it still isn't. Where do morals come in?
Telling someone that they "should not wear that" is telling someone that they should not express themselves in that way.
But,
again, the reason for that "should" doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with morality. It can also be sound practical advice.
The bikini itself is not 'dumb' considering what Quiet is.
Which is exactly the point of the criticism. The dumb bikini comes first, and then a rationale to justify the bikini is created.
I'll just avoid the ranting about PC because, frankly, it's a terrible bore.