546 réponses à ce sujet

[Nozybidaj]

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.

Cute. So what you are saying is we should be tolerant of intolerance?

Personally I don't see much reason BW or anyone should go out of their way to indulge people who can't see beyond their own prejudices, especially when we are speaking about something that in the end would take BW time and money to implement.  It is one thing to be tolerant of people who wear their biases as a badge, it is quite another to make exceptions for them.

Maybe I'm just not as mature or open minded as the people who think they need to filter out homosexuality.

[NewUszi]

Sentr0 wrote...

we're humans not rabid animals that cannot control their instincts

Given how people in this very thread are dividing their brothers and sisters into ingroup and outgroup tribes to justify their feelings of hostility towards the perceived outgroup, I'd see we're obviously clearly in "control" of our instincts.

Not rabid animals at all.

[NewUszi]

NOT AT ALL

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

So it is a choice? lolwut?

Can people make up their mind. Also liking MLP doesn't make you a homosexual, that is like saying liking science makes you straight.

[mauro2222]

Volus Warlord wrote...

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. 

Actually I think that a virus is the best form of population control, it kills fast and in quantity, when his own food is dissapearing, it just evolves and adapts to consume less for prolonged times (it goes into sleep mode).

[Walrusninja]

Well said Sapient but even then, the OP is asking for inclusion of his/her own beleifs and being met with exclusion.

Also, Nozy, aiming to isolate and disregard those who disagree with you is exactly why homosexuality has had such a hard climb in the world (that approach used to be applied to homosexuality). Reversing the treatment will not lead anywhere good.

Modifié par Walrusninja, 19 mars 2012 - 02:49 .

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Nozybidaj wrote...

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.

Cute. So what you are saying is we should be tolerant of intolerance?

Personally I don't see much reason BW or anyone should go out of their way to indulge people who can't see beyond their own prejudices, especially when we are speaking about something that in the end would take BW time and money to implement.  It is one thing to be tolerant of people who wear their biases as a badge, it is quite another to make exceptions for them.

Maybe I'm just not as mature or open minded as the people who think they need to filter out homosexuality.

You certainly aren't mature or open minded, from what little I read of your posts. Also there is some major irony in there, as to why there is even an issue to begin with.

[Tirigon]

DRUNK_CANADIAN wrote...

So it is a choice? lolwut?

Can people make up their mind. Also liking MLP doesn't make you a homosexual, that is like saying liking science makes you straight.

For him it was a choice. Like i said, he has never been in a sexual relationship with a girl, so there is nothing that would make him straight, yet he claims to be.

As for the MLP part, *EDI voice*: That was a joke.

[superwarrior]

The-Sapient wrote...

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.

I don't know for a fact whether it's common or just misunderstood animal behaviour. I've read of elephants going for rhinos but because the rhino had female elephant urine scent on it. Miscommunication in nature? Also, your post about what is natural hints at choice, which is counter-productive to your debate. Oh, and humans (and animals) can be conditioned and are much more malleable than most would surmise.

[gamer_girl]

Just because you've never had a relationship doesn't mean it's a choice of who you're attracted to... Why are you attracted to the sex you're attracted to? If you can give me a sound answer to that question then I'll be impressed.

[The-Sapient]

Walrusninja wrote...

Well said Sapient but even then, the OP is asking for inclusion of his/her own beleifs and being met with exclusion.

And again, intolerance of intolerance
is not comparable to intolerance of sexual orientation.  We have
laws that make it illegal to prevent people from voting based on race.  We don’t balance that with a law that allows
racists to “toggle off” black people’s access to the polls. 

Tolerance is not a belief
that all ideas are equal.  The OP is not
a victim simply because the game producers didn’t include a bigotry button.  He has a right to speak.  He does not have a right to be unaccountable
for what he says. 

I know you are not defending his ideas.  You and are are bantering about something a little more removed.  Nothing personal.

[Volus Warlord]

gamer_girl wrote...

*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... =/

You see, this can be a learning experience for the both of us.

The vast majority of people will simply cling to their predispositions for better or for worse unless there is something direct and substantial to change that. Right now, there isn't. Frankly, I doubt there will ever be. "It would really be nice if..." is by no means substantial, and "it would really be nice if.." statements are the core tenants of the" tolerance" movement.

When people began to call me a bigot, at first I was shocked and irritated. But then I realized what the term had become. A mere political buzzword thrown around to disparage and out of self-pity. Nothing powerful, nothing meaningful. Next, I also realized that due to my affiliations numerous stereotypes would be applied to me regardless of my past, my beliefs, and how I carried myself. In short, I will always be seen as a bigot. Regardless of reality, what is said enough will become truth.

So then the question is why. Why should I try to fight these stereotypes and instances of profiling if they will always exist and be applied? There is no hope for victory. What would it do if I were to beat them? Nothing substantial. I'd be in with the "It would be really nice if.." crowd, until one of them began insulting everything that I am again in a demonstration of tolerance and love. Woohoo.

There is no reason or drive to not be considered a bigot. Like all accusations of prejudice, there is no means to disprove the allegations. Why then? What makes fighting a battle that cannot be won for a victory that means nothing worth it?

[TheSeventhJedi]

Legion64 wrote...

Lol, it's not really needed, just watch what you say. It's quite obvious when a conversation is going somewhere else.

That's my problem though.  There was a time when I was talking to Cortez and he decided to open up to me.  There were two conversation options - open myself up to a romance with him, or totally brush off what he was going through.  (They've done this with straight romances too, btw.)  It's like, I can't just be friends with a gay guy?  I can't be there for him in his time of need without being a romance option?  There really needs to be a nice option on top of the nice "if you know what I mean" option.

[Tirigon]

gamer_girl wrote...

Just because you've never had a relationship doesn't mean it's a choice of who you're attracted to... Why are you attracted to the sex you're attracted to? If you can give me a sound answer to that question then I'll be impressed.

I cant, because I am not attracted to a gender, I am attracted to certain people (though, not right now, happy single atm). Gender is largely irrelevant, it just so happens that people always have a gender.

[Nozybidaj]

Walrusninja wrote...

Well said Sapient but even then, the OP is asking for inclusion of his/her own beleifs and being met with exclusion.

Also, Nozy, aiming to isolate and disregard those who disagree with you is exactly why homosexuality has had such a hard climb in the world (that approach used to be applied to homosexuality). Reversing the treatment will not lead anywhere good.

Oh come on now.  You are really going to compare the disregard for a silly and rather insulting request to the  prejudices against homosexuality?  Seriously?

I'm not even homosexual myself, but I can still see how insulting something like a "gay toggle" being implemented into the next BW game would be. 

[Walrusninja]

Again well said Sapient. I guess I was simply musing on the idea that here's not really such thing as "totally unbiased". Our very society grows and exists on the things we accept and the choices we make. If everything was "absolutely balanced", we'd probably have died out long ago due to severe lack of action and decision making:)

Of course not, been fascinating.

I agree with the idea that it'd insult some people todayNozy. At the same time, the current situation may insult others. As Sapient and myself have narrowed it down to - it basically comes down to what's currently acceptable. This is not a perfect world (for those of you who hadn't realised yet hah).

Modifié par Walrusninja, 19 mars 2012 - 03:02 .

[The-Sapient]

superwarrior wrote...

I don't know for a fact whether it's common or just misunderstood animal behaviour. I've read of elephants going for rhinos but because the rhino had female elephant urine scent on it. Miscommunication in nature? Also, your post about what is natural hints at choice, which is counter-productive to your debate. Oh, and humans (and animals) can be conditioned and are much more malleable than most would surmise.

Whether you know if for a fact or not, homosexual behavior is commonly observed in mammal species. 

And whether homosexuality is a choice has nothing to do with whether it is "natural".  You can't choose to do soemthing "unnatural".  You yourself are natural.  You decisions are an expression of your neurological makeup's reaction to stimulus.  Unless you can decide to violate some physical law, your choices are natural.

That said, there is no evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is just a choice.  Sexual activity can be said to be chosen.  Sexual attraction can not.  A person who is attracted to members of the same and opposite sex might choose to limit who they date or have sex with.  But their orientation is still bisexual.  

[gamer_girl]

Trigon then you are a pansexual which is a very rare sexuality type. Seeing as it's ridiculous, you didn't just wake up one day and say "you know what, I don't care about the parts, I just care about the person." It may have taken time to realize that's the way you are, but it was always inherent. Just like every other person whether straight or gay or even in your case pansexual.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

The-Sapient wrote...

Walrusninja wrote...

Well said Sapient but even then, the OP is asking for inclusion of his/her own beleifs and being met with exclusion.

And again, intolerance of intolerance
is not comparable to intolerance of sexual orientation.  We have
laws that make it illegal to prevent people from voting based on race.  We don’t balance that with a law that allows
racists to “toggle off” black people’s access to the polls. 

Tolerance is not a belief
that all ideas are equal.  The OP is not
a victim simply because the game producers didn’t include a bigotry button.  He has a right to speak.  He does not have a right to be unaccountable
for what he says. 

I know you are not defending his ideas.  You and are are bantering about something a little more removed.  Nothing personal.

Your analogy is as bad as your typing, the toggle option only affects the individual playing the game, not the masses, concessions were made for sake of inclusion, I think the OP has some right to request this option to better their gaming experience. Nobody is harmed in the process, although he probably should have brought it up about 4-6 months ago.

[j78]

superwarrior wrote...

The-Sapient wrote...

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.

I don't know for a fact whether it's common or just misunderstood animal behaviour. I've read of elephants going for rhinos but because the rhino had female elephant urine scent on it. Miscommunication in nature? Also, your post about what is natural hints at choice, which is counter-productive to your debate. Oh, and humans (and animals) can be conditioned and are much more malleable than most would surmise.

superwarrior
Why is this so important to you ? I can’t imagine thinking so deeply about homosexuality . not a jab

[LinksOcarina]

There already is one.

It's called your perspective on things.

[Nozybidaj]

Walrusninja wrote...
I agree with the idea that it'd insult some people todayNozy. At the same time, the current situation may insult others.

The two aren't even comparable.    Not really much else to say other than that.  If you really think they are comparable situations, well then, guess we are done here.

[Kmead15]

TheSeventhJedi wrote...

Legion64 wrote...

Lol, it's not really needed, just watch what you say. It's quite obvious when a conversation is going somewhere else.

That's my problem though.  There was a time when I was talking to Cortez and he decided to open up to me.  There were two conversation options - open myself up to a romance with him, or totally brush off what he was going through.  (They've done this with straight romances too, btw.)  It's like, I can't just be friends with a gay guy?  I can't be there for him in his time of need without being a romance option?  There really needs to be a nice option on top of the nice "if you know what I mean" option.

When was this? When you were at the bar with him and you could tell him you thought the female dancers were hot?  That's the worst brush off of a man I've ever seen. It's a wonder he survived it.

[superwarrior]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Walrusninja wrote...

Well said Sapient but even then, the OP is asking for inclusion of his/her own beleifs and being met with exclusion.

Also, Nozy, aiming to isolate and disregard those who disagree with you is exactly why homosexuality has had such a hard climb in the world (that approach used to be applied to homosexuality). Reversing the treatment will not lead anywhere good.

Oh come on now.  You are really going to compare the disregard for a silly and rather insulting request to the  prejudices against homosexuality?  Seriously?

I'm not even homosexual myself, but I can still see how insulting something like a "gay toggle" being implemented into the next BW game would be. 

I think it's blown out of proportions to reach the status of insult. Let me try this; i seem to remember people asking for toggle to cut out what they consider to be explicit sex scenes. I don't have an issue with that, but they got called prudes. By the same token, i don't see a major issue with a gay on off toggle. Not an insult, but it seems to be seen as such. After all, choice is good right? Why do people have have exclusive abodes, away from the masses? Because they can and want too. I don't see it insulting if they wish to distance themselves form certain crowds or populations. If people are asking for gay persecution and no options for them then yeah, i can issues there...

[Tirigon]

DRUNK_CANADIAN wrote...

Your analogy is as bad as your typing, the toggle option only affects the individual playing the game, not the masses, concessions were made for sake of inclusion, I think the OP has some right to request this option to better their gaming experience. Nobody is harmed in the process, although he probably should have brought it up about 4-6 months ago.

That idea was brought up a year ago already, and heavily discussed in the Fight For The Love thread.

The-Sapient wrote...
A person who is attracted to members
of the same and opposite sex might choose to limit who they date or have
sex with.  But their orientation is still bisexual. 

That is like saying "if you hate that guy you are a murderer even if you restrain yourself and never ever hurt him".

gamer_girl wrote...
Trigon then you are a pansexual which
is a very rare sexuality type. Seeing as it's ridiculous, you didn't
just wake up one day and say "you know what, I don't care about the
parts, I just care about the person." It may have taken time to realize
that's the way you are, but it was always inherent. Just like every
other person whether straight or gay or even in your case
pansexual.

No it is not like that, it is just that character is the most important.

Of course there are beautiful women, and also beautiful men. But unless I love them for their character I am not attracted to them. There also are beautiful animals, and beautiful cars. But I am not attracted to them.