"I don't consider fear much of an evocation. I can do that but jumping out at someone from behind, but I wouldn't call that act performance art. :)"

By jumping out at someone you scare them for real, on a physical level. But don't you think it requires some amount of artistry for someone to scare you merely by depicting happenings on fictional characters in a computer screen?

Other than that, I think my main disagreement with you is that you seem to limit your definition of art to good art or deep art.

For me however even someone whistling to himself is performing art - as he's satisfying an aesthetic sense which isn't related to purely physical gratification.

Their direction, editing, design is a piece of art.
That doesn't mean that the *participants* are doing art. It means that the creators and editors of the show are doing such.

Lousy art, but art nonetheless.

You say it's "chilling", and at the same time you claim it evokes no emotion?

If it's chilling at times, then it evokes more emotions than most the novels I've read or movies I've seen -- and yet nobody would argue that a novelist or moviewriter isn't doing art.

The whole argument about "videogames aren't be art" is merely an old elite claiming that *any* new and popular form of art isn't art. Theater wasn't true art for the first ancient Greeks, and movies weren't true art in the early 20th century, and some people argue nowadays that videogames and comics aren't true art.

Here's a bet: I'm guessing that most of the people objecting to videogames being called art also objects to comics being called art.

All they mean by it is "it's relatively new, and popular enough that there's lot of shitty samples of such as well, so I don't like using the same word to describe it as the pieces of art that have survived centuries and millenia"

Your problem is that you think that "art" automatically means "good art" or "deep art". You think that calling something art automatically makes it a compliment. No. There can exist shallow art, and there can exist bad art.

"Some films aren't art. Some music isn't art. Some books aren't art. Some plays aren't art. "

Sure, those few books and films that are designed without any thought whatsoever given to artistic criteria, aren't art.

But all music and all plays are art - I can't think of any example of such that's not designed with artistic criteria. Music indeed is probably the purest form of art there can be, and I doubt any example of it (even humming to oneself) can be considered non-art.

"Do you also believe that a pinball machine is art "

Yes. It's not *primarily* art (it's primarily a exercise for reflexes instead) and it's an extremely shallow kind of art (bright colors! loud sounds!), but to that limited extent it's still art.

"Heck, just as you claim that video games are art, some people also defend that football is art."

I don't see the rules of the game having been designed with artistic criteria in mind, so I'd disagree with that assessment.

Mascots and cheerleaders do perform art, however (comedy, dancing, etc).

"Just in case you did not notice, most slaves were not sent to school during the day, but to work. School benefits the child, not the parent."

Nobody is disputing that the motivation for the schooling system is different to slavery, and that so are its end results.

(Though the argument that school doesn't benefit the parent is weak - school provides a free babysitter, after all.)

But the model itself of mandatory unpaid labour is similar to slavery. It's similar to many other models as well of course -- e.g. my one-year mandatory service in the Greek army. Would you prefer a comparison to mandatory conscription instead of to slavery?

I think most Greek kids tend to group them together after all, they know they have to finish high school, then they have to finish the army, two mandatory steps, with university being an optional step either following or sandwiched in between.

Because people have a choice which job to apply for, and they have a choice how to use the money. If they're not paid sufficiently, they can also choose to quit.

(If none of these choices is practical, employment does of course transform to nothing more than wage-slavery)

Schoolkids don't get to have any of these choices. Because they're not paid, because someone else decides their education for them, because they can't decide to quit.

It's hunger that motivates you to have breakfast.

Are you implying that we should starve those kids that do bad in school?

"my problem is with paying EXTRA to motivate children to receive it. "
We constantly pay money to people to motivate them to work. And studying IS work - it often is very hard work and very time-consuming work.

"the free availability should be motivation enough. it was for me"
It's not free, for getting a good education you must have paid in time and effort.

By your argument soldiers shouldn't get paid either, since love of country is motivation enough for some people. Or judges and lawyers, since love of justice is motivation enough for some people. You can always find *some* people willing to do volunteer work. That doesn't mean you will necessarily get the best results.

"someone else provides the children with food and a home. those providers have expectations of the children. no further motivation should be expected, let alone required."

You've just described slavery. The master provides food and a home to his slaves, and that provider has expectation of the slaves. No further motivation should be expected, let alone required.

Society has moved away from the slavery-model for our financial system. Perhaps we should move away from the slavery-model for our educational system as well.

One would assume that what's habitable for Species A, wouldn't be normally habitable for Species B.

Unfortunately I'm guessing that in most space battles it will be the case that A=B=Homo sapiens.

Which kinda indicates the underlying problem...

There were no non-white or female presidential candidates in either of the two major parties all the way up to 2004. Does that tell you *nothing* about racism or sexism in society in centuries past?

Or are you gonna say that since they didn't stand for election, it doesn't mean anything that they weren't elected either?

Of course. And people can only become "qualified" by getting educated. And the rich have a significant advantage in securing education for their children. And the rich are predominantly white.

Therefore in this self-reinforcing establishment black and Hispanic minorities will remain underqualified.

That's actually the least of the problem. Why don't you go a few steps further back and figure out *why* some minorities have fewer qualifications in the first place.

To some it may clearly imply a male anus instead.

Your argument is bull. The singular "they" has a historical existence of centuries, going at least back to Shakespare. And yet you are seriously arguing that to describe a potentially female owner with "his" is more accurate? Sheer nonsense.

And for you to claim that this sentence was genderless is also bullshit. Anyone remotely aware of history knows that it was NOT meant genderlessly.

Our so-called drive to "thwart" evolution is itself part of the evolution process.

By showing disdain towards the cold-hearted people that treat "evolution" as an end-goal, we encourage the evolution of more compassionated individuals - whether we seek to do so or not.

The people who would seek to "evolve" themselves right into a holocaust will find themselves outevolved by compassionate civilization.

Please look at a grid I made at :
http://ariskatsaris.deviantart.com/art/Political-grid-143752221
(You can click on it for a bigger image)

Meritocracy is all fine and dandy, but without solidarity strengthening the "egalitarian" axis, it just means that all future competition tilts towards the already successful rather than awarding the more capable.

Solidarity has its own pitfalls ofcourse -- leaning leftwards, it may transform from "supporting the weak" into "group loyalty" instead, thus turning into a new privilege and a new aristocracy.

But meritocracy alone can't stand. If it's not supported by egalitarianism it *will* make itself into aristocracy.

"You're a part of the problem here in the great United States; where it's become acceptable to be a sexist, and racist against the majority of the country."

Yes, I guess that's why there are only 17 women and only 1 black person out of a 100 senators. Because it's "acceptable" to be sexist against men and racist against whites.

Please return to that argument when white men are actually underrepresented in politics or business, not while they remain grossly overrepresented.