If someone has a different sexual orientation or gender identity, it's simply because that's who that person is. They don't want want to impose some kind of change on other people and they certaintly aren't demanding that heterosexuals or people or cis invididuals, make vast sweeping changes in works to accommodate them?
Why is this so hard for people to comprehend?
Why?
Being a font of vile nonsense and dooming and derailing every thread you post in due to said vile nonsense?
I'm sorry but it was not me who derailed it. I'm merely extending my courtesy and reply to comments where I happen to appear. This thread, as you see is about 'this vile nonsense'. If you wish to blame someone then blame agenda adorers who came here only to derail it and get it closed because it does not fit their running amours.
Different sexualities are not improper, nor is it promoting an agenda?
If someone has a different sexual orientation or gender identity, it's simply because that's who that person is. They don't want want to impose some kind of change on other people and they certaintly aren't demanding that heterosexuals or people or cis invididuals, make vast sweeping changes in works to accommodate them?
This is not what I see on these forums.
For what exactly? Wanting a toggle option? For being kind in my responses or--?
Oh, please. Don't play the "kind" card with me. It's not how you say it, is what you say.
Slave lovers and homophobes aren't "kind". They're sick.
This is not what I see on these forums.
What do you personally see (from your point of view)?
What do you personally see (from your point of view)?
A bunch of unenlightened plebs who tolerate filth and uncleanliness, probably.
What do you personally see (from your point of view)?
Two epic pieces! You have great taste in music.
Why thank you! Earlier in this monstrosity of a thread, I linked the entire album. It's 6 hours and great background music. Some of the tracks are better than others, but overall I think this is OCremix's best work to date.
Luxury, wider opportunities, safety(even if you don't fear yourself, you should secure your line). There is also control, but I guess it belongs to opportunity.
Need for safety and security stems from fear, I think you understand this yourself. It does not need to be fear for yourself and your own incapability only.
Luxury is a very subjective matter but you should ask yourself what luxury provides? A more comfortable life? A sense of achievement? A better future? Why to pursue that? The answer is fear.
Opportunities for what? Since you bring control in this, I'll guess that you perhaps mean that they can help control your future better, give you a better outcome. That's fear right there.
When it comes to dominance and control, we only want to control what we fear and what we feel we don't control, be it our future, our nature, the person next to us, our children, our job, etc. The basis for dominance is fear.
Oh, please. Don't play the "kind" card with me. It's not how you say it, is what you say.
Slave lovers and homophobes aren't "kind". They're sick.
But it is lore positive to want slave companion or arranged marriage. I see nothing out of place here. I do not fear non straight people, of this I can assure you.
What do you personally see (from your point of view)?
I see people promoting, defending, demanding certain agendas inclusion. These people are shutting down threads that oppose their, let's call it, 'views'.
This is not what I see on these forums.
Y'mean, intolerance towards heteronormative crusaders, who demand tolerance for themselves and their sexual orientation and gender identity, but don't wish to bestow that same degree of compassion, tolerance and empathy to others who those who happen to have sexual orientations and gender identity that differ with their own?
Then again, you did argue earlier that empathy is pointless...?
Need for safety and security stems from fear, I think you understand this yourself. It does not need to be fear for yourself and your own incapability only.
Luxury is a very subjective matter but you should ask yourself what luxury provide? A more comfortable life? A sense of achievement? A better future? Why to pursue that? The answer is fear.
Opportunities for what? Since you bring control in this, I'll guess that you perhaps mean that they can help control your future better, give you a better outcome. That's fear right there.
When it comes to dominance and control, we only want to control what we fear and what we feel we don't control, be it our future, our nature, the person next to us, our children, our job, etc. The basis for dominance is fear.
No, it does not, not always. Fear may play into it, but it is not obligatory. There is also discomfort, it works too. It is not fear, it is adoration for luxurious things, pleasure and joy. Again, it is not fear, it is ambition. Just because you can live in the mud, it does not mean you want it and it is not fear that drives you forward but gain.
Basis for dominance is power, change.
Y'mean, intolerance towards heteronormatic crusaders, who demand tolerance for themselves and their sexual orientation and gender identity, but don't wish to bestow that same degree of compassion, tolerance and empathy to others who happen to have sexual orientations and gender identity that differ?
Then again, you did argue earlier that empathy is pointless...?
You mean the norm, the 98% of population, ah yes. Orientation is a strong word.
Yes, I did.
Y'mean, intolerance towards heteronormative crusaders, who demand tolerance for themselves and their sexual orientation and gender identity, but don't wish to bestow that same degree of compassion, tolerance and empathy to others who those who happen to have sexual orientations and gender identity that differ with their own?
Then again, you did argue earlier that empathy is pointless...?
@Sifr. Why can't people just live and let live? Why does there have to be heteronormative crusaders in the first place?
You know as depressing as it is that there are people with these views, at least likeable tolerant and accepting people like you Sifr are in the majority. At least there is hope for humankind.
But it is lore positive to want slave companion or arranged marriage. I see nothing out of place here. I do not fear non straight people, of this I can assure you.
I see people promoting, defending, demanding certain agendas inclusion. These people are shutting down threads that oppose their, let's call it, 'views'.
Your posts state otherwise.
You mean the norm, the 98% of population, ah yes. Orientation is a strong word.
Y'mean, intolerance towards heteronormative crusaders, who demand tolerance for themselves and their sexual orientation and gender identity, but don't wish to bestow that same degree of compassion, tolerance and empathy to others who those who happen to have sexual orientations and gender identity that differ with their own?
Then again, you did argue earlier that empathy is pointless...?
I believe the exact wording was that it was a sin.
But it is lore positive to want slave companion or arranged marriage. I see nothing out of place here. I do not fear non straight people, of this I can assure you.
I see people promoting, defending, demanding certain agendas inclusion. These people are shutting down threads that oppose their, let's call it, 'views'.
See, here's the thing. The game already has the characters you want gone. You are the one coming in here and promoting your "agenda", namely that you find these things icky and should be able to turn them off. Throwing the "gay agenda" card on the table is unimpressive at the best of times, but doing in such a disingenuous manner is just silly.
I'm sorry but it was not me who derailed it. I'm merely extending my courtesy and reply to comments where I happen to appear. This thread, as you see is about 'this vile nonsense'. If you wish to blame someone then blame agenda adorers who came here only to derail it and get it closed because it does not fit their running amours.
This is not what I see on these forums.
"Agenda adorers".
Seriously, go play in traffic. It sounds like you want gay people to do the same anyway.
No, it does not, not always. Fear may play into it, but it is not obligatory. There is also discomfort, it works too. It is not fear, it is adoration for luxurious things, pleasure and joy. Again, it is not fear, it is ambition. Just because you can live in the mud, it does not mean you want it and it is not fear that drives you forward but gain.
Basis for dominance is power, change.
You mean the norm, the 98% of population, ah yes. Orientation is a strong word.
Yes, I did.
I want to understand your point of view here.
You want this toggle option because you want to dominate every female character in the game.
You then proceed to talk about the power of dominance and then express it as the one an only human character trait that matters.
Is this a fair representation? If not, please correct me.
You mean the norm, the 98% of population, ah yes. Orientation is a strong word.
Because everyone has a sign on their forehead stating their sexual orientation, right?
Because every single male and female who have engaged in heterosexual acts are automatically straight?
No, it does not, not always. Fear may play into it, but it is not obligatory. There is also discomfort, it works too. It is not fear, it is adoration for luxurious things, pleasure and joy. Again, it is not fear, it is ambition.
Ambition can exist without dominance, lust for luxury can exist without dominance. Well-adjusted ambitious people do not preoccupy themselves with concept of dominance that's not what drives them, however people who can't separate these two things often think that the only way to achieve goals is to dominate.
It's always fun to see Mr. Homophobic evade certain points he has no answer for in this thread. Always the same with those.
This gets even more heated, so that Report button really came to good use.
By the left eye of Odin...
We don't need this "everyone is bi and doesn't know it" fallacy going on here. I know that there are lesbians that are sick of hearing that. "You just need the right man," or "You're really only into girls to make men jealous." I've also seen that short of mentality lead to lesbian women and gay men getting targeted for "correction" by groups of men and/or by women. Yes, it happens to gay men as well, from women.
Tying down and blindfolding a man, then forcing him to have oral sex preformed on him isn't proving bisexuality. I think we know what the word is for that. And as a man, sometimes getting turned on means squat. You can look it up; men don't have to be mentally or physically turned on to have their sexuality aroused. Depending upon the circumstance, a warm breeze on a cool day can do it. Are those men suddenly wind-sexuals?
This is a toxic and dangerous line of thinking, almost worse than a certain poster's slashfic that he wants BioWare to implement in the games as canon. I know the thread is a trainwreck, but would you guys please drop that line of thinking?
This useful insight about this line of thinking is conceptually the same as a player 'forcing' Sera to submit to male attention.
That's not the way she is (as written).
This thread started poorly with the OP and I see it has gone down hill.
Seriously people, as soon as he started using the word "improper" to describe homosexuality you should have blanked him. People like that aren't worth the energy of typing a response.
I'm going to quote your signature. It sums up the amount of ignorance on this thread.
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
But it is lore positive to want slave companion or arranged marriage. I see nothing out of place here. I do not fear non straight people, of this I can assure you.
I see people promoting, defending, demanding certain agendas inclusion. These people are shutting down threads that oppose their, let's call it, 'views'.
You're acting as if homosexuality or bisexuality are just opinions that people are somehow trying to force upon others. Some people are straight, some are gay, some might be bi, some might be pansexual, asexual... It is up to you to accept that not everybody will conform to what you are comfortable with if you for some reason dislike gays. The mere existence of non-straight characters isn't some evil "agenda", that's just art imitating life. You probably have some gay people among your friends and family in real life as well, whether you know it or not. Or do you not believe in friendship because it is a weakness and hinders your quest for dominance?
And I realize I've fallen into your trap by giving you an even remotely serious reply. Oh well.
Modifié par JobacNoor, 27 février 2015 - 10:31 .
Your posts state otherwise.
I assure you, you won't find fear for non straight people in me.
I believe the exact wording was that it was a sin.
I believe the exact wording was that it was a sin.
See, here's the thing. The game already has the characters you want gone. You are the one coming in here and promoting your "agenda", namely that you find these things icky and should be able to turn them off. Throwing the "gay agenda" card on the table is unimpressive at the best of times, but doing in such a disingenuous manner is just silly.
I see no agenda in my writings.
Because everyone has a sign on their forehead stating their sexual orientation, right?
Because every single male and female who have engaged in heterosexual acts are automatically straight?
It is because we are where we are now, with billions running around.
"Agenda adorers".
Seriously, go play in traffic. It sounds like you want gay people to do the same anyway.
Of course not.
I want to understand your point of view here.
You want this toggle option because you want to dominate every female character in the game.
You then proceed to talk about the power of dominance and then express it as the one an only human character trait that matters.
Is this a fair representation? If not, please correct me.
No, it was not me who started dominance discussion. want toggle option to avoid agendas.
Ambition can exist without dominance, lust for luxury can exist without dominance. Well-adjusted ambitious people do not preoccupy themselves with concept of dominance that's not what drives them, however people who can't separate these two things often think that the only way to achieve goals is to dominate.
Such ambitions will fail or limit itself to a very small achievements. But it can't achieved without it.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut