2875 réponses à ce sujet

[solstickan]

centauri2002 wrote...

There's all these controversial topics being debated here and you feel inclined to comment on the method of quoting. >.>

Yes, because I want to read what is being discussed without having to skim through a myriad of quotes. Also, is it really that difficult to highlight and press Del?  Does it take anymore effort than writing out that well thought-out argument?

Bah! Just, please, try it. 

Modifié par solstickan, 27 mars 2011 - 08:11 .

[Centauri2002]

Tirigon wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of controlling the population, since we are quite out of control.

Impossible. If this was true, 90% of Europeans and North Americans, and the entire rest of the world, would be homosexual.

Unless, of course, Mother Nature screwed up big time. As she always does.

Oh, come now Tirigon, nothing's impossible. You and I get along and that should be impossible considering our first exchange of posts. 

[Lord Sullivan]

Seifz wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Please stop.  You don't know what you're talking about.

Topics of interest:  evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, human sexuality, game theory, population modeling.

Yeah, lets all put a blindful to the truths all around us and pretend. I know exactly what you're talking about.

I don't even know what that means.  What are you trying to say?

EDIT: I meant *Blinfold* btw...

It's my way of telling you that I know exactly what I'm talking about and that we can't ignore nor change the truth.
I would think that my explanation would be quite basic to understand about nature's law

[Centauri2002]

solstickan wrote...

Yes, because I want to read what is being discussed without having to skim through a myriad of quotes. Also, is it really that difficult to highlight and press Del?  Does it take anymore effort than writing out that well thought-out argument?

Bah! Just, please, try it. 

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know I do usually do that. There's only a couple of times when it was forgotten. See, I just did it. :3

[moilami]

Tirigon wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

Maybe homosexuality is nature's way of controlling the population, since we are quite out of control.

Impossible. If this was true, 90% of Europeans and North Americans, and the entire rest of the world, would be homosexual.

Unless, of course, Mother Nature screwed up big time. As she always does.

Mother Nature does not try to limit - the very opposite is true. Balance is achieved in other ways.

[Tirigon]

centauri2002 wrote...

Oh, come now Tirigon, nothing's impossible. You and I get along and that should be impossible considering our first exchange of posts. 

I find that pictures of ManoWar before they heard of waxing studios are generally a great way to win a woman´s heart and soulB)

[solstickan]

Seeing as I "killed" the debate, I would like to add that the world isn't split between hetero/******/bi-sexuals. Straight people can be attracted to a person of the same sex on occation, but that does not mean this person would consider him/herself bi. A lot more than 10% have same sex encounters.

I don't know where I was going with this... But there it is. *Ahem* I'll just take my leave then.

[moilami]

solstickan wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

There's all these controversial topics being debated here and you feel inclined to comment on the method of quoting. >.>

Yes, because I want to read what is being discussed without having to skim through a myriad of quotes. Also, is it really that difficult to highlight and press Del?  Does it take anymore effort than writing out that well thought-out argument?

Bah! Just, please, try it. 

The first quoting police I see here. I wonder is this evolution and will I see the first grammar police soon.

[Tirigon]

solstickan wrote...

Seeing as I "killed" the debate, I would like to add that the world isn't split between hetero/******/bi-sexuals. Straight people can be attracted to a person of the same sex on occation, but that does not mean this person would consider him/herself bi. A lot more than 10% have same sex encounters.

Don´t get me wrong.... but what exactly is "bi" even, if you can be atttracted to someone of your own gender and still remain straight?

[solstickan]

centauri2002 wrote...

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know I do usually do that. There's only a couple of times when it was forgotten. See, I just did it. :3

I'm sorry if you felt like I  was targeting you only. I simply wanted to explain why pyramids are bad and took my chance when you gave it to me. 

[Seifz]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Please stop.  You don't know what you're talking about.

Topics of interest:  evolution, natural selection, sexual selection, human sexuality, game theory, population modeling.

Yeah, lets all put a blindful to the truths all around us and pretend. I know exactly what you're talking about.

I don't even know what that means.  What are you trying to say?

EDIT: I meant *Blinfold* btw...

It's my way of telling you that I know exactly what I'm talking about and that we can't ignore nor change the truth.
I would think that my explanation would be quite basic to understand about nature's law

Your explanation makes no sense at all.

1.  Nature is an abstract idea.  It cannot decide anything at all.  It also cannot create anything.  (Evolution)
2.  Sexuality developed not as a means of reproduction, but as a means of improving genetic diversity.  Reproduction was around long, long before sexual reproduction.  (Evolution, Natural Selection)
3.  Sexual desire evolved as a means of selecting a mate most suitable to bearing healthy offspring.  That humans have sex for pleasure is actually an exception.  Nearly no other animals do this.  (Sexual Selection, Human Sexuality)
4.  Despite the need for some heterosexual breeding, more than a thousand other species have been observed participating in homosexual behavior.  (Game Theory, Population Modeling)
5.  Your entire explanation is human-centric.  You assume that humans were created in their present form at some point in the past, that sex exists for the reasons we use it, and that nature "cares" if we survive or not.

[Centauri2002]

solstickan wrote...

Seeing as I "killed" the debate, I would like to add that the world isn't split between hetero/******/bi-sexuals. Straight people can be attracted to a person of the same sex on occation, but that does not mean this person would consider him/herself bi. A lot more than 10% have same sex encounters.

I don't know where I was going with this... But there it is. *Ahem* I'll just take my leave then.

I didn't say you killed the debate. Your comment seemed to distract people from what we were discussing previously. Which may not necessarily be a bad thing. 

But, yes, there's a lot of labelling going on. Things are rarely as simple as that.

Edited to say: Just caught your other reply. Gotcha, pyramids = bad. Except the constructs created by ancient cultures. Those are good. But do not belong here. Nope. Right... *coughs*

Modifié par centauri2002, 27 mars 2011 - 08:24 .

[Lord Sullivan]

Tirigon wrote...

solstickan wrote...

Seeing as I "killed" the debate, I would like to add that the world isn't split between hetero/******/bi-sexuals. Straight people can be attracted to a person of the same sex on occation, but that does not mean this person would consider him/herself bi. A lot more than 10% have same sex encounters.

Don´t get me wrong.... but what exactly is "bi" even, if you can be atttracted to someone of your own gender and still remain straight?

Some like to refer to that as being straight with Bi-sexual tendencies.

[Seifz]

solstickan wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know I do usually do that. There's only a couple of times when it was forgotten. See, I just did it. :3

I'm sorry if you felt like I  was targeting you only. I simply wanted to explain why pyramids are bad and took my chance when you gave it to me. 

Well, I think that we use words like heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual for convenience.  More likely, it's a continuous spectrum and not three discrete bins.

EDIT:  And the pyramid quote was necessary for context this time, dammit!  So don't get all quote **** on me again! 

Modifié par Seifz, 27 mars 2011 - 08:26 .

[AkiKishi]

[quote]Seifz wrote...
It's my way of telling you that I know exactly what I'm talking about and that we can't ignore nor change the truth.
I would think that my explanation would be quite basic to understand about nature's law[/quote]

Your explanation makes no sense at all.

1.  Nature is an abstract idea.  It cannot decide anything at all.  It also cannot create anything.  (Evolution)
2.  Sexuality developed not as a means of reproduction, but as a means of improving genetic diversity.  Reproduction was around long, long before sexual reproduction.  (Evolution, Natural Selection)
3.  Sexual desire evolved as a means of selecting a mate most suitable to bearing healthy offspring.  That humans have sex for pleasure is actually an exception.  Nearly no other animals do this.  (Sexual Selection, Human Sexuality)
4.  Despite the need for some heterosexual breeding, more than a thousand other species have been observed participating in homosexual behavior.  (Game Theory, Population Modeling)
5.  Your entire explanation is human-centric.  You assume that humans were created in their present form at some point in the past, that sex exists for the reasons we use it, and that nature "cares" if we survive or not.
[/quote]

Primates have sex for pleasure.
Weather patterns and a whole heap of other factors determine when animals mate. Because humans are not subject to these factors, it's a free for all.
Not sure about dogs... They sure look happy when they are licking themselves but who really knows,

[Shawn Ogg]

Hi. First of all:
1- Sorry for my english ^^U
2- Havent read the full topic only some of the first pages so what Im going to say is probably that has already been said so sorry if thats the case.

I think in all the threads about this matter there are two topics that are constanly being mixed and that leads to misunderstanding:

-The inclusion of gay relationships on the game
-How the relationships are handle/written (gay or not).

These topics should be discused indepently, because I see many people who are not happy with the general romances issue but when stating that they are confused as being in disagreement with the first point.

Having said that Ill give my opinion about this (I warn you in advance, I tend to write posts too long.. ^^U)

-The inclusion of gay relationships on the game
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well I have no problem with that, will be foolish of me to oppose that since Im gay. I have to admit (DA series not being the case) that Id rather prefer not to see a gay npc than to see once more the tipical gay stereotype many series/films/games tends to force down our throats.

I cant understand why some people would have problems with that so I can only imagine the reasons. I wont convince anyone with that opinion to change it, Im not naive enough to think a post in a forum would be able to do anything against years of "education" recieved also I have no need to do so,

I do see (as in every forum something like this is discussed) a lot of missinformation. I wont make a post to explain how things works, Ill just point one thing and if someone find it strange or in opposition at he/she has always believed I invite him/her to use our friend the internet to get further information:
-Homosexuality is not an option. Is not something you choose. You born that way. You can dye black you blonde hair but It always be blonde when it grows.


-How the relationships are handle/written
-----------------------------------------------------------

When I first played DA:O my only option was Zevran. Not bad at the end but I everytime I saw Alistar I just felt a little frustrated I cant romace him (he is just too cute). I ended up making a female champ on my second playthrought but still it wasnt the same. The inmerison thing. I though it was nice this "limitation" was not present on DA2.

Still I can see why some people complain about this issue. I do realize that more than half of the party flirt with you is just a little weird. The inmersion thing again.

So I though: on one hand I like being able to have many options to choose but on the other hand It feels a little strange everyone is willing to drop down their pants at the snap of my fingers.

After some thinking I do believe that the all bi thing is not the problem here. But rather how it is handle. I think it would be no problem at all if it had been done better. How? Well, the thing is it should be done in a way a straigh Hawke never get flirted by any male companion unless the companion was clearly meant to be gay/bi (Zevran) while I gay Hawke will. To achieve that there must be a way that the game recognize the player tastes before making any of the npc make a move. How? Well it would be enough to let Hawke make the first advance always.



->Some random nonsenses:
-----------------------------------------
-People dont have a sexual-orientation-radar. If a guy tries to flirt with you is not different when you try to flirt with a girl. Just turn him down. Everyone has the right to flirt, everyone can reject a proposiont and everyone can stand being rejected. As well as you dont know if you have any chance with that hot girl on the bar until you try a guy doesnt know either if he has any chance with you. Does this mean he cant try? That wouldnt be fair dont you think?

-I know most people say this with no bad intention just the opposite but the "I have/My gay friends" thing never felt right to me ("me" as a personal opinion). Im not anyone's gay friend Im just a friend.

-To those who where surprised when seeing Anders approaching them. Dont be so surprised. In DA:O Zevran only lacked a rainbow unicorn to make his interests more clear but so you know thats not the usual thing on the real world. Im the first to admit that you can see lots of guys who cant put it clearlier even if they tatto GAY on their foreheads, and although this constant stereotype is being used and abused everywhere its far from being an standard. TOO FAR. Most of gays you wouldnt recognize them until its too late.... wua hahahaha... ok just joking . But it is true that although some guys, and thats an attitude Id never understand, just seems to build all his life/personality around the fact they are gay, they are just a minority, a noisy one, but still a minority. So yes someone like Anders can be gay, even the Arishock.

-Dont know why we have to see Cullen again and not that templar guarding the boat at Ferelden Circle also known as the queen of Antiva.("oooh cookies... yummi")

[solstickan]

moilami wrote...

The first quoting police I see here. I wonder is this evolution and will I see the first grammar police soon.

I am not the first in this thread. But the other was here long ago and his/her messago is long lost...

Tirigon wrote...
[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/andy.png[/smilie]
Don´t get me wrong.... but what exactly is "bi" even, if you can be atttracted to someone of your own gender and still remain straight?

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. The straight person having a same sex relationship is more of a one time thing. S/he is drawn to a specific person, but not attracted in general to people of the same sex (bi). If you have watched Torchwood I would describe it as Jack and Ianto's relationship. Though of course this can vary greatly -- see the Kinsey scale. 

What I meant was, that sexuality isn't set in stone. At least, that is not how I see it. I see myself as heterosexual, but I imagine that if I met the right person, I could have a gay relationship. Though, maybe that is because I am very open-minded?

[Lord Sullivan]

Seifz wrote...

Your explanation makes no sense at all.

1.  Nature is an abstract idea.  It cannot decide anything at all.  It also cannot create anything.  (Evolution)
2.  Sexuality developed not as a means of reproduction, but as a means of improving genetic diversity.  Reproduction was around long, long before sexual reproduction.  (Evolution, Natural Selection)
3.  Sexual desire evolved as a means of selecting a mate most suitable to bearing healthy offspring.  That humans have sex for pleasure is actually an exception.  Nearly no other animals do this.  (Sexual Selection, Human Sexuality)
4.  Despite the need for some heterosexual breeding, more than a thousand other species have been observed participating in homosexual behavior.  (Game Theory, Population Modeling)
5.  Your entire explanation is human-centric.  You assume that humans were created in their present form at some point in the past, that sex exists for the reasons we use it, and that nature "cares" if we survive or not.

Well than you're a person that lives with the sense that there is no reason for anything, while I see, sence and experience a reason for everything everyday and keep learning, but that's not saying everything is perfect and on course.

Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 27 mars 2011 - 08:32 .

[the_one_54321]

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I don't care about the homosexuality issue.

Fair is fair, end of story.

However, I do care that the writers took a short cut to provide options instead of writing more characters. The presentation of characters in ME2, despite the relative lack of dialog, was much better.

Seifz wrote...
It's easier to just hit quote.  If you don't like it, tell the web team to change it.

The mods actually frown on the pyramid quotes. If you keep doing it you should be prepared to potentially have your posts deleted.

The thing is that it is far too complicated to mess with the right quoting in this forum. I don't go to details why it is so but there are many reasons for it. That promotes to just click and bottom post.

Yeah, pretty much.  The quote tags seem to appear in random places and it's easy to miss one, quotes in edited posts appear differently than normal quotes, etc.  I've written a fair number of poorly formatted posts that I had to then go edit because of the quote system here.

Ok, well so long as you're prepared to accept that the mods might delete your posts.

Also, awesome how the part of my post that was actually meant to be important has been completely ignored.

[Seifz]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Seifz wrote...

Your explanation makes no sense at all.

1.  Nature is an abstract idea.  It cannot decide anything at all.  It also cannot create anything.  (Evolution)
2.  Sexuality developed not as a means of reproduction, but as a means of improving genetic diversity.  Reproduction was around long, long before sexual reproduction.  (Evolution, Natural Selection)
3.  Sexual desire evolved as a means of selecting a mate most suitable to bearing healthy offspring.  That humans have sex for pleasure is actually an exception.  Nearly no other animals do this.  (Sexual Selection, Human Sexuality)
4.  Despite the need for some heterosexual breeding, more than a thousand other species have been observed participating in homosexual behavior.  (Game Theory, Population Modeling)
5.  Your entire explanation is human-centric.  You assume that humans were created in their present form at some point in the past, that sex exists for the reasons we use it, and that nature "cares" if we survive or not.

Well than you're a person that lives with the sense that there is no reason for anything, while I see, sence and experience a reason for everything everyday and keep learning, but that's not saying everything is perfect and on course.

No, I am not a nihilist.  That said, your claim that homosexuality is unnatural has no scientific evidence to support it.  Thus, we have no reason to believe that homosexuality is abnormal.

If you continue to call gay people unnatural, etc. then don't complain when someone calls you homophobic.

[Phaedon]

ReconTeam wrote...

It's the Escapist. It's crap. The only good thing about them is the Aussie guy who does the reviews.

And Extra Credits, but I agree. I'd rather read the Onion.

Modifié par Phaedon, 27 mars 2011 - 08:36 .

[Seifz]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Seifz wrote...

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I don't care about the homosexuality issue.

Fair is fair, end of story.

However, I do care that the writers took a short cut to provide options instead of writing more characters. The presentation of characters in ME2, despite the relative lack of dialog, was much better.

Seifz wrote...
It's easier to just hit quote.  If you don't like it, tell the web team to change it.

The mods actually frown on the pyramid quotes. If you keep doing it you should be prepared to potentially have your posts deleted.

The thing is that it is far too complicated to mess with the right quoting in this forum. I don't go to details why it is so but there are many reasons for it. That promotes to just click and bottom post.

Yeah, pretty much.  The quote tags seem to appear in random places and it's easy to miss one, quotes in edited posts appear differently than normal quotes, etc.  I've written a fair number of poorly formatted posts that I had to then go edit because of the quote system here.

Ok, well so long as you're prepared to accept that the mods might delete your posts.

Also, awesome how the part of my post that was actually meant to be important has been completely ignored.

Pyramid quote much? 

[Viper371]

snfonseka wrote...

What I think what BW has done is totally dumb. They should have introduced some characters as straight, some as bi and some as gay. It is more realistic than turning all the romance-companions into bi characters.  They should have approached this sexuality issue in more creative manner, where the sexuality is part of the characters' personality. For example, Merrill is straight and Isabela is bi.  Well..., BW you have done the character development in your past games in great manner, so don't try to dumb down the character development now.

this is the problem with the romances.

On DAO, there were bi-sexual characters. Lelianna was more on the straight side of the fence, Zevran was totally bi.

I'm sure a few people didn't like that.  There are people like that.  But as many people as are currently disliking the romance options in DA2?  No way.

The problem is not that a character or another is gay/bi instead of straight, it's that every single one of them is bisexual, wich is unrealistic, and dumb from a gameplay point of view.

Currently, there's no difference playing a male or female character.  Oversimplification, again.

I'll repeat it again: oversimplification.  That's the problem of this game, and that's the problem with romance, just as with almost all aspect of the game.

You know, I don't care if character X is totally, openly gay.  It's a in-game choice to pursue a romance, and that's fine.  But I do mind when everyone is bi, and there's really no difference between playing a male and a female.  In DAO, it felt different, in DA2, it doesn't.

[the_one_54321]

Seifz wrote...
Pyramid quote much? 

I was referencing something from my initial post. Also, that's not really an example of really bad pyramid quoting. If it kept up, it would have been.

And the actual important part of my post was still completely ignored. Neat.

[Tirigon]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Some like to refer to that as being straight with Bi-sexual tendencies.

I like to call bullsh!t on stupid word constructs and call it plain old Bi:police: