If one of the goals of the game is learn about various political practices, people should bring in their own personal beliefs. If everyone is objective all the time, no one will know how other people feel about a suggestion or policy. People should be able to express themselves honestly. Everyone may not agree most of the time, but there is a possibility that some idea will appeal to everyone. If people cannot say what they think, and are treated as if their opinions are not worthwhile, they will still feel the same and be disinclined to accept what is allowed.
I agree with what smyers has to say. Setting aside all personal beliefs when participating in this game seems a bit ridiculous. The personal beliefs we possess make us who we are. If we do not allow these than how are we to learn about others? How can we learn to tolerate other points of view and be more open minded? It seems to me that being open minded is an objective of this game. We can't begin to try to change something before hearing others out and this means hearing personal beliefs because the decision we make stem from these. More importantly, the very foundation in determining what the final product of this game will look like is based off of allowing others to bring in their personal beliefs by allowing for an open forum to discuss them. I would hope that this open forum would still be available as part of the game.
People should be able to express themselves honestly as smeyers points out. If this is not allowed than I definetly think a strong argument is people may end up feeling disclined to accept what is allowed. People should never be prohibitied from expressing themselves freely.
i agree. i believe that all personal beliefs should be allowed and hopefully this game will be able to change those beliefs to ones that will benefit us in the real world.
I agree with (McLovin) in that this is a very complicated subject matter with various pros and cons to each side. However, I believe that because it appears as though the object of the game revolves around the subject of equality, it is essential that all personal beliefs be set aside. In doing so we are essentially eliminating the possibility of allowing external factors such as cultures, religion, and education to shape politics and turn into a complicated subject matter. By allowing more external factors to come into play when shaping politics we are creating a much complicated and sensitive subject matter. We must deviate from conflict and differences and focus on common interests or goals.
This is a perplexing question because there are pros and cons to each side. However, because this is a global politics game, I think the necessity for a pluralistic model that accomodates vast differences is essential. This requires particpant's personal beliefs to be incorporated. This underlies more complicated political relations that can see intersections of cultures, religions, and educations.
If one of the goals of the game is learn about various political practices, people should bring in their own personal beliefs. If everyone is objective all the time, no one will know how other people feel about a suggestion or policy. People should be able to express themselves honestly. Everyone may not agree most of the time, but there is a possibility that some idea will appeal to everyone. If people cannot say what they think, and are treated as if their opinions are not worthwhile, they will still feel the same and be disinclined to accept what is allowed.
I agree with what smyers has to say. Setting aside all personal beliefs when participating in this game seems a bit ridiculous. The personal beliefs we possess make us who we are. If we do not allow these than how are we to learn about others? How can we learn to tolerate other points of view and be more open minded? It seems to me that being open minded is an objective of this game. We can't begin to try to change something before hearing others out and this means hearing personal beliefs because the decision we make stem from these. More importantly, the very foundation in determining what the final product of this game will look like is based off of allowing others to bring in their personal beliefs by allowing for an open forum to discuss them. I would hope that this open forum would still be available as part of the game.
People should be able to express themselves honestly as smeyers points out. If this is not allowed than I definetly think a strong argument is people may end up feeling disclined to accept what is allowed. People should never be prohibitied from expressing themselves freely.
i agree. i believe that all personal beliefs should be allowed and hopefully this game will be able to change those beliefs to ones that will benefit us in the real world.
I agree with (McLovin) in that this is a very complicated subject matter with various pros and cons to each side. However, I believe that because it appears as though the object of the game revolves around the subject of equality, it is essential that all personal beliefs be set aside. In doing so we are essentially eliminating the possibility of allowing external factors such as cultures, religion, and education to shape politics and turn into a complicated subject matter. By allowing more external factors to come into play when shaping politics we are creating a much complicated and sensitive subject matter. We must deviate from conflict and differences and focus on common interests or goals.
This is a perplexing question because there are pros and cons to each side. However, because this is a global politics game, I think the necessity for a pluralistic model that accomodates vast differences is essential. This requires particpant's personal beliefs to be incorporated. This underlies more complicated political relations that can see intersections of cultures, religions, and educations.