My daughter and her cousin were playing a game. The name of the game was “Would You Rather.” “Would you rather be eaten by sharks or burned in a fire?” A moment of hesitation. “Eaten by sharks.” “Okay. Would you rather kill your small pet or fall down and scrape your knee?” No hesitation: “Fall down and scrape my knee.” “Right. Now, would you rather be buried alive or drown at sea?” Small pause. “Drown.”
And on and on it goes. What is the object of this game? Why would anybody play it? Is it a way that children prepare themselves for the grown up world with its multitude of illusory forced choices? Pepsi or Coke? Chemotherapy or radiation therapy? Adopt that stray dog in the pound or choose to have it euthanized instead? Institutionalize that homeless person or put him on the dole? Welfare or Labor Camp? Democrat or Republican?
What if we stopped thinking in binary? What if it were okay to say: “Neither, thank you very much.” What if we make our own soda or don’t drink soda at all? What if dogs nobody wanted were left alone as long as they did no one any harm? What if people who had no home were not regarded as a problem for someone else to solve? What if it were legal to be a vagrant, as long as you didn’t bother others? What if people were free to find their own way through life? What if we didn’t have to vote for one of two choices: the one who wants to take our money in order to house and educate and provide work for other people or the one who wants to take our money to kill other people? In the long run, is there much difference between a labor camp and a concentration camp? Why not say no to both? You know it’s not just for other people — the less fortunate– don’t you? In the long run they are making these choices for all of us. Would you rather be on welfare or serve in the military? Would you rather be shot by a cop or be the one doing the shooting at the government’s behest? How about we don’t hesitate, then pick a side. How about we just say “No!”
When people are asked who they will vote for as president, they are being asked “Obama or Romney.” Some say “Obama.” If you ask them why, they answer: “Because Romney is bad.” Some say “Romney.” If you ask them why, they answer: “Because Obama is bad.”
Which would you choose if this were your choice?
What if they are both bad? “But my candidate is the best choice!” someone responds. Best implies that there are more than two choices. Best is not grammatical if your are just comparing between Obama and Romney. You have to say “better” not “best.” The best choice is neither. “Would you rather be suffocated for your own good or taken out by a drone?” The best answer is: “No, thank you, to both.” And walk away.
The Vacuum County Forced Choice T-shirt — Order Here
Copyright 2012 Aya Katz
Related Articles
https://www.pubwages.com/09/another-glimpse-into-the-true-heart-of-this-president
https://www.pubwages.com/21/stray-dogs-and-stray-children
Vacuum County — Buy it here
Hey Aya, that was a very interesting article. What many people fail to realize is that when it comes to the marketplace and buying products, there’s always more than one choice and there’s always more than two choices. When it comes to making other decisions, there’s always more choices than what is seen at the time the person has to make the choice. It depends on their level of knowledge(including experience) and wisdom attained up to that point in time, including their perception and awareness. If one is not aware of a choice, then they are not likely to perceive the choice.
In the end, if a person is able to understand what “wisdom” truly is and is led by conscience instead of ego, then the knowledge(including experience) would be turned into wisdom(honest derived truth), which would led them to finding what perception is correct for their level of awareness.
A lot of this article is giving people only two choices when in fact there’s always more choices than that. It’s never down to one or two choices. Having children playing a game like that sort of thing is like pre-programming them to be nothing more than robots for the future politicians, and the kind of people who like to distort and supply misinformation. I wouldn’t let my kid or for that fact any child next to one of those type games, especially in the manner. What happens in any given situation/circumstance is not always a simple as played out in a game like your examples. If a person had to choice to pick between being eaten by a shark or burned a live- I’m pretty damn sure they would say “neither”, because the choice isn’t actually valid, until they are put into that position. They can say all they want about a “what if” situation/circumstance, but will not truly know which they would pick and to ask a child at any age to make that particular choice is absurd.
Thank you for asking me to read and comment, since it is about choices that needed to be made. You would be correct on one thing- politicians and the choice people make about them is completely different- there’s always more than the 2 choices represented in any election. Obama, Romney, Other and No Vote. America has more than two parties, but the main two parties(Democrat and Republican) are the ones who are truly backed by big money, while the smaller parties are not. Thank you again.
Thanks, Ray, for your thoughtful comment. I agree that there are always more than two choices and that the big problem facing us is making people more aware of that.
As for the game, “Would you rather?”, it is not a packaged game. Kids play it by asking each other questions. It’s their choice to play or not to play this game. Nobody is forcing them to do so. I would never tell a child not to play a game of his own devising when it’s merely a word game. I believe in letting kids choose for themselves. But it’s a puzzle to find out why they find this game appealing.
Yeah, the “what ifs” of life…
I’ve been in that same situation when I have to choose between two things or among a number of options. I hope there would come a time in my life when I can just concurrent choices all at the same time. But then, as of now, choosing one side or option is the only thing possible to me.
What I’m proud of so far is me being able to choose a side, which I was able to justify even though aftermaths from such choices had gone against me. It’s just a matter of being brave enough to make a firm stand on something.
—
I think, the reason why kids love playing that “would you rather” kind of game, can be related to their subconscious desire for independence to take over and decide for themselves. But like what you said, such game shouldn’t be banned from children. I also believe it harnesses their decision-making skills.
Thanks, Tina. I know exactly what you mean. In some sense, all choices seem like forced choices, because we can’t choose necessarily what we want. We may want a better job, but we choose from among those that are offered to us. We may want a bigger house, but we have to choose from among those that are in our price range. We may want an exotic food, but we have to choose from among those available at our local grocery store.
And so we get the idea that this is all there is to life; making a reasonable decision from one of several delimited choices. But sometimes we forget that there are other choices not on the menu that we could choose: say no to all those jobs we don’t really want and, instead, start our own business. Say no to all the houses on the market, and, instead, build our own house. Say no to all the foods that are available to buy on the shelves of all the stores, and instead grow and prepare our own food.
It is like this in the political arena as well. If you don’t like any of the candidates offered on the ballot, you can write in who you really want. If enough people do that, we can beat the system. My choice is Ron Paul. How about you?
Children need to be left alone to devise their own games. But sometimes we can learn something about the example we are setting them, if their games seem very limited.