506 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

This topic is about statistical probability of bisexuals (apparently...) and I made points about much more glaring statistical improbabilities in the game...and....*crickets*

I think that says it all...

So your point is to derive the conversation into your more "glaring issue of the game" instead of it's current course... amirite?

You don't see the obvious disconnect? If, as you say, statistics are the underlying reason for your objection to four bisexual LIs in the squad, then why aren't the other, more glaring examples of inaccurate statistics a proportionally greater concern? If I obected to elf characters on principle, I think I would focus on Fenris, Merrill, Orsino, Marethari, Zevran, etc., the most prominent elves in the game, I wouldn't focus my attention on Master Ilen, a relatively minor elf character. So if the objection is solely statistical inaccuracy, I find it odd that one of the smallest examples of that is the one that's so stringently argued.

-sigh- It's argued... because the thread's purpose is to focus on said 'minor issue'...

Really if you want to discuss these 'major issues' just please, create a new thread.

That's my point though. I don't think they're major issues. I don't think the statistical improbability of four bisexual LIs is an issue either. You say that YOU do. So, if I were to look at your profile, I would see lots of activity in threads related to the larger examples of statistical inaccuracy in the game, and relatively little activity in the threads dedicated to the smallest violations of statistical inaccuracy. Right?

So, we're focusing on this minor issue in this thread, but the underlying cause of discomfort being stated has larger implications in the game, implications that are relevant to the issue at hand. So, as many times as you try to belabor the "off-topic" point, you're really just avoiding the harsh spotlight I've thrown on your underlying reason for the objection that IS THE WHOLE POINT of this topic. If you object to this minor example of BioWare's departure from statistical perfection, to what extent do you object to the much more glaring examples of the same exact phenomenon in the game? That is 100% on topic. I'm not suddenly talking about thermal clips in Mass Effect here.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 10:41 .

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Actually it did

ipgd wrote...

Your lack of willingness to answer challenges to the logical consistency of your argument. These "off-topic" arguments are brought up in order to assess the veracity of the core claim itself ("If your issue with X is Y, do you have an issue with Z which also has the quality of Y, or is your issue with Y constrained to its coincidence with X?") independent of its tie to bisexuality, which is relevant to an argument about bisexuality given the frequency of aforementioned dummy arguments in this kind of topic. You have evasively sidestepped these questions despite their relevance to any subject that is fraught with this behavior.

But, regardless: the argument itself is fallacious because, again, four people out of millions is not a statistically relevant sample size and is not representative of the sexuality of Thedas as a whole. The sample is far too small to draw any conclusions about the sexuality of Thedas. Neither is two bisexual love interests out of four, or any love interests out of four. If strict statistical representation were a concern, there would be exactly one queer LI per five games. But statistical representation is not a concern, so statistic issues are not relevant.

Bolded part I simplified for you, and it was in your post.

Sigh, that is not what I meant.

Here, let me attempt to clarify it:

"Because this is a controversial issue, we have reason to doubt that the issues you cite are in fact the reasons why you are participating in the argument. If you would take the time to confirm the logical consistency of your argument, the discussion can return to the argument itself."

This kind of meta-argumentative ****** is just as off-topic as addressing a few logic checks, so refusing to do so isn't really doing anything to keep things on whatever desired narrow topic you want, either.

Why would one doubt it, if the reasons I cite directly pertain by me physically stating "see these reasons I cite? This is how they pertain to the discussion" in my posts?

There's is no logical gaps here, I am phyiscally stating "here's my position, and this is how it relates."

Quote me not stating that.

[Akka le Vil]

Master Wolf wrote...

I give you credit for your self criticism it's very accurate

Please, I did the same attempt at snarkiness when I was in highschool :-/
Someone who accuse me about my supposedly discimination about something I didn't even mention, and just repeat this after I've pointed it to him that I have never even given my opinion on the subject, just can't be honest. It's just strawmanning closing in on the Godwin's Point level.

[Harid]

Three pages have been wasted stating that we won't argue these other points that don't relate to the topic at hand in this thread. Let's see how many more can be done!

[Siansonea]

Harid wrote...

Three pages have been wasted stating that we won't argue these other points that don't relate to the topic at hand in this thread. Let's see how many more can be done!

Here's the thing though. The following is not a rational discussion:

"I object to four bisexual LI's, that's statistically unlikely."

"Well, almost no children in Kirkwall and zero female dwarves and female Qunari is even more unlikely"

"That's off-topic."

I'm sorry, but is the failure of that logic not completely obvious? If you object to something based on a principle, isn't that principle the nucleus of the topic?

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 10:47 .

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

That's my point though. I don't think they're major issues. I don't think the statistical improbability of four bisexual LIs is an issue either. You say that YOU do. So, if I were to look at your profile, I would see lots of activity in threads related to the larger examples of statistical inaccuracy in the game, and relatively little activity in the threads dedicated to the smallest violations of statistical inaccuracy. Right?

What? You just said they were major issues

Siansonea II wrote...

And
yet somehow, some very jarring character discontinuities—namely Anders
willingness to romance a pro-Templar Hawke, and Fenris’ willingness to
romance a Mage Hawke—are not eliciting the same amount of outrage in the
community.

Siansonea II wrote...

So, we're focusing on this minor issue in this thread, but the underlying cause of discomfort being stated has larger implications in the game, implications that are relevant to the issue at hand. So, as many times as you try to belabor the "off-topic" point, you're really just avoiding the harsh spotlight I've thrown on your underlying reason for the objection that IS THE WHOLE POINT of this topic. If you object to this minor example of BioWare's departure from statistical perfection, to what extent do you object to the much more glaring examples of the same exact phenomenon in the game? That is 100% on topic. I'm not suddenly talking about thermal clips in Mass Effect here.

How is it relevant to the issue at hand, if it's not pertaining to this 'minor topic' you have pointed out?

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

Harid wrote...

Three pages have been wasted stating that we won't argue these other points that don't relate to the topic at hand in this thread. Let's see how many more can be done!

Here's the thing though. The following is not a rational discussion:

"I object to four bisexual LI's, that's statistically unlikely."

"Well, almost no children in Kirkwall and zero female dwarves and female Qunari is even more unlikely"

"That's off-topic."

I'm sorry, but is the failure of that logic not completely obvious? If you object to something based on a principle, isn't that principle the nucleus of the topic?

The only thing irrational there was the random comment of children and female quanari/dwarves

When did children come into place here? What does children have to do with anything? We are talking about bisexuals, not children or female dwarves/quanari.

Modifié par Anathemic, 04 juin 2011 - 10:49 .

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

Why would one doubt it, if the reasons I cite directly pertain by me physically stating "see these reasons I cite? This is how they pertain to the discussion" in my posts?

There's is no logical gaps here, I am phyiscally stating "here's my position, and this is how it relates."

Quote me not stating that.

Because this is an argument about sexuality, which is a controversial topic. Your evasiveness in the face of challenges to your argument's logical consistency suggests that your argument may be a dummy argument. Nobody wants to waste their time fighting a dummy argument, given that none of the arguments against said dummy argument would be persuasive regarding the core issue it obfuscates. We would rather argue actual issues, and this problem could be resolved if you would either a) reveal the real core argument so it can be addressed directly or answer some brief logical consistency questions in order to verify that is indeed your objection.

If it could be established that b is the case, we could continue on this topic as normal, but you refuse to do so, so instead we are having this bizarre argument about arguing that is infinitely more off topic than any logical consistency assessments.

[Harid]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Why would one doubt it, if the reasons I cite directly pertain by me physically stating "see these reasons I cite? This is how they pertain to the discussion" in my posts?

There's is no logical gaps here, I am phyiscally stating "here's my position, and this is how it relates."

Quote me not stating that.

Because this is an argument about sexuality, which is a controversial topic. Your evasiveness in the face of challenges to your argument's logical consistency suggests that your argument may be a dummy argument. Nobody wants to waste their time fighting a dummy argument, given that none of the arguments against said dummy argument would be persuasive regarding the core issue it obfuscates. We would rather argue actual issues, and this problem could be resolved if you would either a) reveal the real core argument so it can be addressed directly or answer some brief logical consistency questions in order to verify that is indeed your objection.

If it could be established that b is the case, we could continue on this topic as normal, but you refuse to do so, so instead we are having this bizarre argument about arguing that is infinitely more off topic than any logical consistency assessments.

Make a new thread, posit your same argument there, invite us to argue our points there, stop mucking up this topic in an attempt to get it locked for being off topic, given the mod warning.

The fact that none of you will makes arguing this point come across as disingenious at best.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 10:52 .

[RaenImrahl]

Ladies and gentlemen. I am going to brew a pot of tea. I haven't descaled my kettle in a while, so it will probably take about 15 minutes to boil and brew a decent cup of tea.

When I return to the computer, tea in hand, the first thing I'll do is read this thread. If the current level of amateur theatrics and faux debate society nonsense is continuing, the thread will be locked and a number of people will be banned.

In other words, it's time to stop bickering about who said what or implied what about whom... and talk about the game. Only the game.

If you are not capable of doing that... then I suggest you go away before my kettle boils.

[jlb524]

So, this all boils down to:

1) Person A makes an argument.
2) Person B counters it.
3) Person A calls the counter 'off-topic' and refused to acknowledge it.

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Why would one doubt it, if the reasons I cite directly pertain by me physically stating "see these reasons I cite? This is how they pertain to the discussion" in my posts?

There's is no logical gaps here, I am phyiscally stating "here's my position, and this is how it relates."

Quote me not stating that.

Because this is an argument about sexuality, which is a controversial topic. Your evasiveness in the face of challenges to your argument's logical consistency suggests that your argument may be a dummy argument. Nobody wants to waste their time fighting a dummy argument, given that none of the arguments against said dummy argument would be persuasive regarding the core issue it obfuscates. We would rather argue actual issues, and this problem could be resolved if you would either a) reveal the real core argument so it can be addressed directly or answer some brief logical consistency questions in order to verify that is indeed your objection.

If it could be established that b is the case, we could continue on this topic as normal, but you refuse to do so, so instead we are having this bizarre argument about arguing that is infinitely more off topic than any logical consistency assessments.

Option B is not the case because I already fulfilled Option A. There is no hidden deeper argument in my argument. My argument is already laid flat out and vulnerable mutiple times in this thread.

[ipgd]

Harid wrote...

Make a new thread, posit your same argument there, invite us to argue our points there, stop mucking up this topic in an attempt to get it locked for being off topic, given the mod warning.

The fact that none of you will makes arguing this point come across as disingenious at best.

I do not have a desire to start a new topic. I have a desire to clarify the topic so it can continue.

[Harid]

Well, this will get the topic locked, mission accomplished, I suppose.

[Sutekh]

Anathemic wrote...

Do you really honestly believe that the argument of "But this issue is unrealistic too! Go discuss that one instead of this one!" holds any credibility at all?

That isn't what is done here. It's not "Oh, look, another unrealistic thing so let's discuss this instead", it's "But why does it bother some people so much when those same people don't bat an eyelash about other discrepancies? Could it be that their problem isn't realism, after all?".

Which is one helluvah assumption, I'll give you that. But it's not derailing, it's putting the question under another light. It remains the same question.

Anyway, moving on. You keep saying that you put the game bi LI's in comparison to RL. So, I'm curious (and this is a genuine question): Which RL, exactly? Since you invoke statisics, what is your reference? Which period? Which culture? Which religion? Which country? Which background and circle of friends? Mine or yours? Because I can safely assume they're quite different, and, maybe, the realism or lack thereof of four bi LI would be quite different as well? Or compared to seven centuries ago? Or ten in the future?

All this assuming, of course, that any RL can be compared to the fantasy world that is Thedas, and putting aside all the meta-knowledge that has been argued numerous times (and blissfully ignored by most).

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

So, this all boils down to:

1) Person A makes an argument.
2) Person B brings up another issue and demands people to discuss it.
3) Person A calls the counter 'off-topic' and refused to acknowledge it.

Fixed

[Foadumf]

Just because people accept bi- and ******- sexuality as a reality in today's world doesn't give anyone the right to up and throw it in their faces either. And just because they accept it doesn't mean the like it in any way.

I've known many a gay man that I have been nice to and none of them just up and throw themselves at me as much as Anders did in this game.

[Inquisitor Recon]

jlb524 wrote...

So, this all boils down to:

1) Person A makes an argument.
2) Person B counters it.
3) Person A calls the counter 'off-topic' and refused to acknowledge it.

Rather seems to be a case of.

1. Person A makes an argument
2. Person B calls Person A a homophobe or bisexualphobe because Person B wants everybody bisexual.
3. Person B brings up something unrelated

Repeat process ad-infinitum

[Siansonea]

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

That's my point though. I don't think they're major issues. I don't think the statistical improbability of four bisexual LIs is an issue either. You say that YOU do. So, if I were to look at your profile, I would see lots of activity in threads related to the larger examples of statistical inaccuracy in the game, and relatively little activity in the threads dedicated to the smallest violations of statistical inaccuracy. Right?

What? You just said they were major issues

(This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call “deflection”)

No, I said that someone who is as concerned as you seem to be about Dragon Age 2’s departure from real-world demographic distribution SHOULD BE more concerned about the lack of children in Kirkwall, as well as the complete lack of female dwarves and Qunari, than a relatively minor instance of statistical improbability like having four bisexual people in one place.

So, the question remains, if this truly is the basis for your concern, why aren’t the larger examples of it even MORE of a concern for you?

Siansonea II wrote...

And yet somehow, some very jarring character discontinuities—namely Anders willingness to romance a pro-Templar Hawke, and Fenris’ willingness to romance a Mage Hawke—are not eliciting the same amount of outrage in the community.

Siansonea II wrote...

So, we're focusing on this minor issue in this thread, but the underlying cause of discomfort being stated has larger implications in the game, implications that are relevant to the issue at hand. So, as many times as you try to belabor the "off-topic" point, you're really just avoiding the harsh spotlight I've thrown on your underlying reason for the objection that IS THE WHOLE POINT of this topic. If you object to this minor example of BioWare's departure from statistical perfection, to what extent do you object to the much more glaring examples of the same exact phenomenon in the game? That is 100% on topic. I'm not suddenly talking about thermal clips in Mass Effect here.

How is it relevant to the issue at hand, if it's not pertaining to this 'minor topic' you have pointed out?

If you object to something on religious grounds, then the topic is religion, not whatever you’re objecting to. If you object to something on moral grounds, then the topic is morality. The specific thing that is objectionable is merely an instance.

If it were not the case, then the topic would look like this:

“I object to bisexual LI’s because it’s unrealistic for there to be so many in one squad!”
“I object to bisexual LI’s because their outfits are ugly!”
“I don’t object to bisexual LI’s because I don’t like dwarves!”

You see, it’s not a discussion, no one is discussing the underlying principle, the actual basis for the objection or lack thereof, they’re just saying a bunch of random things related to bisexual LIs. That’s not a discussion. You can’t say “I object to A because of B,” and then say discussing B is off-topic. If that’s the whole basis for your objection, it IS THE TOPIC.

[Foadumf]

quit nerding up the thread.

[Akka le Vil]

Siansonea II wrote...

It sounds to me like you’re saying it’s a very subjective issue. I think all four of the characters are written well, they all ring true to me. If they don’t for you, I doubt it’s solely due to their bisexuality, since that’s only relevant to the LI portion of the character interaction.

They can be rather interesting overall and still lacking in some areas. Their "romantically variable" state make them weaker, but it doesn't make them all complete rubbish. I enjoyed many of them, but they would have had higher potential with more artistic integrity and less gameplay/marketting interference.

Not so fast—You conveniently removed the context of my remark about children in Kirkwall.

The only context was strawmanning and sidetracking. Keep it on-topic.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 juin 2011 - 11:00 .

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

(This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call “deflection”)

No, I said that someone who is as concerned as you seem to be about Dragon Age 2’s departure from real-world demographic distribution SHOULD BE more concerned about the lack of children in Kirkwall, as well as the complete lack of female dwarves and Qunari, than a relatively minor instance of statistical improbability like having four bisexual people in one place.

So, the question remains, if this truly is the basis for your concern, why aren’t the larger examples of it even MORE of a concern for you?

Now we are back on square one. How did you arrive to this conclusion of said issues not being a concern of mine? I stated I don't give a rat's ass about it because it's not the point of this thread. In another thread I might discuss it, I might not, you cannot make that assumption.

Modifié par Anathemic, 04 juin 2011 - 11:00 .

[Ryzaki]

...Yeah this thread is gonna be locked.

Between the namecalling and offtopictangents good riddance I say.

[Harid]

Every single "controversial" thread on these boards, every single time, end the exactly same way.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 11:00 .

[Anathemic]

I'm done with this thread, this is going nowhere.