546 réponses à ce sujet

[Nozybidaj]

superwarrior wrote...
The OP argument is as valid as gay people asking for Shep to be gay, which they got. Same argument if BW gave an gay on/off toggle.

Uh, no.  The first argument is asking for inclusiveness within the game world and the game's content, and equality of choices.  The second argument is asking for development of game mechanics to enable one person's own insecurities and prejudices. 

If seeing an onscreen option to flirt with a same gender character or a 5 second VO hinting at the option is enough to make that person uncomfortable, well, tough.  It likely wouldn't hurt them to be made uncomfortable more often.

[Tirigon]

Volus Warlord wrote...


Actually, those are called PREDATORS. lol.

Actually, no. Predators hunt because they want something to eat, with the exception of humans they dont give a f*ck about population control.

[Volus Warlord]

Tirigon wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...


Actually, those are called PREDATORS. lol.

Actually, no. Predators hunt because they want something to eat, with the exception of humans they dont give a f*ck about population control.

They are nature's form of population control. 

[Walrusninja]

I see what you're getting at Nozy, but at the end of the day either way it's forced. Homosexual relationships etc. were added. Not everyone is fine with that, but there's nothing they can do and your answer is "tough". That's not really tolerance or equality.

Modifié par Walrusninja, 19 mars 2012 - 02:31 .

[The-Sapient]

superwarrior wrote...

@Guldhun2

What u say is besides the point. The common aim of all species is to breed and spread. Overpopulation is another matter.

Breeding and spreading is not an aim of species.  Traits that results in the propgation of genes is more likely to pass on to future generatiosn of a given population.  Dogs and oaks and turtles don't breed because they want their species to spread.  They do it because they carry genes which  make them disposed to doing it.

It is important to note that diversity in traits is healthy for species.  If you set a philosophical goal, based on your perception of biology, of genetic propogation, you don't want every adult member reproducing as much as they can.  Sometimes you want population booms.  Sometimes resources are limited, and having a surplus of non-breeding adults supporting a smaller group of decendents is a better strategy.

But, basing behavior on an evolutionary goal is poor policy.  It is ethicaly foolish, and it shows a misunderstanding of evolution.  Evolution is what happens over time.  It is not a goal.  And deciding people should only do things that spread their genes as much as they can justifies rape while condemning things like learning to play the piano.

[superwarrior]

j78 wrote...

superwarrior wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

superwarrior wrote...

An option at the character setting stage is a good and fair suggestion for future games.

I also want an option to filter out all straight options, they make me uncomfortable.  Oh and an option to filter out black people, they make me uncomfortable too.  Oh and an option to filter out all outfits with the color red, and all dialogue options that include the word "witzelsucht", I am highly offended by witzelsucht.......

Then why have ANY options at all hmmm? The OP argument is as valid as gay people asking for Shep to be gay, which they got. Same argument if BW gave an gay on/off toggle. Want gay options choose on. Don't want, then DON'T choose it. I understand that that was the most common reply from people on this thread. Just the other side of the coin. Best would be a game with ZERO options then. Problem solved. Except for people asking for more options again.

Did you ever think that homosexuality is the other side of the coin .Natures way to keep a population under control .

The thought had occured to me before. But like i said, it's UNKNOWN (i.e. without any cetainty) as to whether, if assuming homosexuals are a way to control population, the cause is natural or man-made. If homosexuals are psychologically or "artificially" ( hence man-made and unnatural ) created then there is a serious societal issue. If naturally occuring then so be it, and all that remians is whether this "defect" can be rectified and whether the subject wishes to be "rectified". But going really off-topic so 'ill stop my theories.

[WatchTheGrass]

I don't care if a character is gay or straight and overall ME3 has been pretty good, you can let people down easy.

Take DA2 on the other hand. Anders comes up and confesses to you, even if you'd never chosen a romantic option and had just been friendly. You can say you love him, tell him a joke then say you love him or call him an ungodly abomination who you never want to see again and to **** off ontop of that.

I'm exaggerating a little but I was annoyed I didn't have a "I like you as a friend and I'm not into dudes sorry" option.

[Tirigon]

Volus Warlord wrote...


They are nature's form of population control. 

No they arent.
Nature does not do population control.


It just so happens that if you eat things, those get less.

Modifié par Tirigon, 19 mars 2012 - 02:35 .

[gamer_girl]

*sigh* I'm almost at the point where I don't even want to bother trying anymore. Instead of letting bygones be bygones, it's more of a letting bigots be bigots... =/

[The-Sapient]

Walrusninja wrote...

I see what you're getting at Nozy, but at the end of the day either way it's forced. Homosexual relationships etc. were added. Not everyone is fine with that, but there's nothing they can do and your answer is "tough". That's not really tolerance or equality.

Do you believe that "tolerance"
would indicate that the game should have a toggle off different human races so
that white supremacists don't have to see non-white people?



I would suggest to you that intolerance of
homosexuality and intolerance of intolerance are not the same thing. 

[Volus Warlord]

Tirigon wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...


They are nature's form of population control. 

No they arent.
Nature does not do population control.

Of course not. Silly me.

[Guldhun2]

Tirigon wrote...

It just so happens that if you eat things, those get less.

Aka Nature

[AlectoIra]

I dunno I've ending up in a lot of relationship I didn't expect due to just spamming space to get through the talking o.O
but if they make a oriention button, then I'll just end up with the wrong guy insted of a female.

Modifié par AlectoIra, 19 mars 2012 - 02:37 .

[Walrusninja]

I wasn't saying that Sapient, I was saying that it's wonky for Nozy to suggest that his opinion is correct and that the OP should deal with it, when if the roles were reversed as they were in the past, Nozy would probably be asking questions himself.

[Guldhun2]

AlectoIra wrote...

I dunno I've ending up in a lot of relationship I didn't expect due to just spamming space to get through the talking o.O

ACTION MODE ACTIVATE!

[superwarrior]

Walrusninja wrote...

I see what you're getting at Nozy, but at the end of the day either way it's forced. Homosexual relationships etc. were added. Not everyone is fine with that, but there's nothing they can do and your answer is "tough". That's not really tolerance or equality.

Yeah i've typed too much but walrusninja does raise one of the points i wanted to reply. It cuts both ways. And if i use your "tough luck" approach i've little doubt that i'll be slammed on this thread. At least, if common patterns on this topic are to be applied...

[Tirigon]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

It just so happens that if you eat things, those get less.

Aka Nature

Yea. But it is not Population Control.

Let me clarify the difference:

Population Control: We want X amount of species A. Whenever their number surpasses X, we introduce an appropriate amount of predators to bring their numbers down to X.

Nature: There's species A. They procreate without any plan or something. Then there are predators who eat A. they do the same. Sometimes that results in a balance. Sometimes it results in A getting wiped out, and the predators either switching prey or starving. Sometimes A procreates so fast that the predators arent even noticeable.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Duwaal wrote...

It's just like real life, you can make that choice whenever you want. Not right at the beginning, that's silly.

Can't tell if this is a clever attack on the homosexual theory of nature, as opposed to nurture, or just a dumb post lol.

[Guldhun2]

Tirigon wrote...

Population Control: We want X amount of species A. Whenever their number surpasses X, we introduce an appropriate amount of predators to bring their numbers down to X.

Nature: There's species A. They procreate without any plan or something. Then there are predators who eat A. they do the same. Sometimes that results in a balance. Sometimes it results in A getting wiped out, and the predators either switching prey or starving. Sometimes A procreates so fast that the predators arent even noticeable.

"Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

[The-Sapient]

The thought had occured to me before. But like i said, it's UNKNOWN (i.e. without any cetainty) as to whether, if assuming homosexuals are a way to control population, the cause is natural or man-made. If homosexuals are psychologically or "artificially" ( hence man-made and unnatural ) created then there is a serious societal issue. If naturally occuring then so be it, and all that remians is whether this "defect" can be rectified and whether the subject wishes to be "rectified". But going really off-topic so 'ill stop my theories.

As homosexuality is common in mammals, I can't see how one can make an argument that it is unnatural in humans.  I'm not even sure what "natural" means in this context.  Is rape natural?  Is playing video games?  Is it possible for anything in nature to do something that is not natural?  

Species have variation.  Variation is natural.  A tall person is as natural as a person of average size.  A picky eater is as natural as a person who prefers a wide variety of food.  Traits are traits, and they are natural by definition.

[Parker Kincaid]

The-Sapient wrote...

Do you believe that "tolerance"
would indicate that the game should have a toggle off different human races so
that white supremacists don't have to see non-white people?

I would suggest to you that intolerance of
homosexuality and intolerance of intolerance are not the same thing. 

BINGO!

Well stated, The-Sapient.

EDIT:

Nozybidaj wrote...

superwarrior wrote...
The OP argument is as valid as gay people asking for Shep to be gay, which they got. Same argument if BW gave an gay on/off toggle.

Uh, no.  The first argument is asking for inclusiveness within the game world and the game's content, and equality of choices.  The second argument is asking for development of game mechanics to enable one person's own insecurities and prejudices.  

If seeing an onscreen option to flirt with a same gender character or a 5 second VO hinting at the option is enough to make that person uncomfortable, well, tough.  It likely wouldn't hurt them to be made uncomfortable more often.

 

I also wanted to say this was great, as well. I missed this post the first time around.

Modifié par Parker Kincaid, 19 mars 2012 - 03:00 .

[Tirigon]

DRUNK_CANADIAN wrote...

Duwaal wrote...

It's just like real life, you can make that choice whenever you want. Not right at the beginning, that's silly.

Can't tell if this is a clever attack on the homosexual theory of nature, as opposed to nurture, or just a dumb post lol.

Many people make their choice at the beginning. I have a friend who is like "Lol I'm not gay I am straight". He didnt actually ever have a girlfriend or anything to indicate he is, and he likes MLP which indicates otherwise, but nevertheless he is straight because he chose to be.

[gamer_girl]

It's not a matter of silly thinkgs like "he said deal with it so why can't it be the same reversed". I dunno about the American way of doing things but it is most definitely in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that people have the right to live without descrimination for their race, gender, sexuality, religion, handicaps, etc. So it's a matter of respect for human rights - not some immature playground "he said she said" bull crap.

[mauro2222]

Tirigon wrote...

Moonshadow_Dark wrote...


Now you're saying homosexuality is like Veganism?

Dude go back to the Smoking analogy.

That is of course not the case. Homosexuality does not negatively affect other people's interaction with you (unless they are idiots, at least).
Veganism otoh does, because it is hard to like the guy telling you that you are responsible for murder, children starving and the death of the whales just because you ordered a salami pizza.

That's an ****, a true vegan knows why we like meat, and why some can't leave it.

The process is utterly disgusting and unthical, I eat meat, but those people are sick. Goddamn capitalism.

Modifié par mauro2222, 19 mars 2012 - 02:50 .

[The-Sapient]

Walrusninja wrote...

I wasn't saying that Sapient, I was saying that it's wonky for Nozy to suggest that his opinion is correct and that the OP should deal with it, when if the roles were reversed as they were in the past, Nozy would probably be asking questions himself.

I disagree.  Asking for inclusion and asking for exclusion are different matters.