7455 réponses à ce sujet

[Siansonea]

Ryzaki wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Homeopathic eh?

I'll be honest. That gig doesn't fly with me. Not backed by science.

It isn´t backed by science either that using a parachute when jumping out of a plane increases your chances of survival, but it´s true.

A real head-scratcher, this one. A conundrum.

Seriously, enough with the debate on the efficacy of homeopathy. Let's get back on topic. I believe we were all talking about how we're right and they're wrong, and they should just stop being wrong and accept that we're right. Is that how everyone else remembers it?

Can't that apply for any debate in the world? 

I think it was more on the lines of how a compromise wasn't be reached with the colored text yet somehow was with the toggle. NM the fact that the colored text solved far more problems than the toggle does. <_<

To me, all it boils down to is that no matter what accommodations we suggest as a courtesy to the group who oppose same-sex content, there is a contingent of same-sex supporters who simply will not entertain the idea of accommodation of any kind.

[Ryzaki]

Siansonea II wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Homeopathic eh?

I'll be honest. That gig doesn't fly with me. Not backed by science.

It isn´t backed by science either that using a parachute when jumping out of a plane increases your chances of survival, but it´s true.

A real head-scratcher, this one. A conundrum.

Seriously, enough with the debate on the efficacy of homeopathy. Let's get back on topic. I believe we were all talking about how we're right and they're wrong, and they should just stop being wrong and accept that we're right. Is that how everyone else remembers it?

Can't that apply for any debate in the world? 

I think it was more on the lines of how a compromise wasn't be reached with the colored text yet somehow was with the toggle. NM the fact that the colored text solved far more problems than the toggle does. <_<

To me, all it boils down to is that no matter what accommodations we suggest as a courtesy to the group who oppose same-sex content, there is a contingent of same-sex supporters who simply will not entertain the idea of accommodation of any kind.

Tis the same for the other side to though. We just have to reach a consensus amoung the majority of both sides (which most likely won't include those who are just not willing to compromise).

[SorenTrigg]

I think the main reason why people feel that way, is because why exactly should we have to accommodate people who oppose same sex romances?

There should be no reason to compromise for *same treatment*.



I get that sometimes you have to compromise, but why in this case? There are already heterosexual romances. People will lose *nothing* if same sex romances are put in. So, why?

[Ryzaki]

slimgrin wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

I think the main reason why people feel that way, is because why exactly should we have to accommodate people who oppose same sex romances?
There should be no reason to compromise for *same treatment*.

I get that sometimes you have to compromise, but why in this case? There are already heterosexual romances. People will lose *nothing* if same sex romances are put in. So, why?

You are ignoring the bias of the majority. It's not fair, but that is why you have to compromise.

Heck in that case can we get more than one s/s LI for both gender? Heck its not like they'll see it anyways. That's a good compromise no? 

Edit: off topic I figured otu was wrong thanks to one of my friends who tends to fast alot. A cup of fruit with heavy syrup is not the best thing to break a fast with. Too strong. She suggested I eat crackers and I can eat them just fine. Sadly I have no fresh fruit without the syrup so that's just gonna have to wait.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2010 - 11:50 .

[Siansonea]

SorenTrigg wrote...

I think the main reason why people feel that way, is because why exactly should we have to accommodate people who oppose same sex romances?
There should be no reason to compromise for *same treatment*.

I get that sometimes you have to compromise, but why in this case? There are already heterosexual romances. People will lose *nothing* if same sex romances are put in. So, why?

Do I really have to say this again? Regardless of how wrong we feel the opposing viewpoint is, it is still a valid viewpoint for those individuals. It is their reality, and we should have enough respect for them to try to find a workable solution that benefits both groups. Honestly, Soren, we understand that you are absolutely inflexible on the issue, we get that. You and I don't need to repost the same dialogue over and over. Really, "why should we have to compromise?" is not a helpful attitude or a productive line of inquiry. What harm do you experience being the bigger person in this situation? That's the question you should be asking yourself.

For the record, I think they're wrong too, I think it would be a lot easier and better for everyone if they would just get over their weird attitudes, but wishing won't make it so. It should be noted that they're the ones who are currently 'winning' this argument, by the way. All your attitude will guarantee is that things will simply remain the way they are, and your inflexibility will form perfect symmetry with theirs.

I guess the only upside to that outcome is that you would be able to remain filled with righteous indignation about it. I hope it's fun for you. To be honest, it's not that fun for me.

[SorenTrigg]

Sian, I do not care if the other viewpoint is valid or not. It is not about making people comfortable. It is about being fair and having more options. There are plenty of heterosexual romances, but if it comes to same sex romances we *have* to compromise to get them put in?

Why?

I get that it makes people uncomfortable and some people are against it. But...so? As has been pointed out, there are tons of things in the games that make plenty of people uncomfortable, but they still get put in. So why does this one specific subject matter so much if people are uncomfortable or not?

Please do not bring up sales, that is something that none of us can gauge here.

[Sago_mulch]

WRITE TO BIOWARE WITH REALLY ANGRY LETTERS

[Ziggy]

 

Ryzaki wrote...Totally off topic: Is it normal if you've gone without eating for 3 weeks to only be able to eat 2 bites of something before feeling full to the point of bursting? 

OT i know but it's important.
By not eating for so long your body goes into starvation mode, your whole metabolism changes and your body will save the fat and go after muscle. It will only go back to fat when you are DYING.
At my uni there are always free bbqs and stuff on campus, the red cross etc. i'm sure it's not so different there: use them.
Be careful when you start eating again - your stomach will have shrunk (which is why you feel full after eating so little) and your metabolism will be very slow and you're likely to gain any weight you've lost.
Drink lots of water.

Siansonea II wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...
I think the main reason why people feel that way, is because why exactly should we have to accommodate people who oppose same sex romances?
There should be no reason to compromise for *same treatment*.

I get that sometimes you have to compromise, but why in this case? There are already heterosexual romances. People will lose *nothing* if same sex romances are put in. So, why?

Do I really have to say this again? Regardless of how wrong we feel the opposing viewpoint is, it is still a valid viewpoint for those individuals. It is their reality, and we should have enough respect for them to try to find a workable solution that benefits both groups. 

But it is not a valid view point.
It is nothing more than baseless intolerance with no logic or reasoning behind it and is generally unacceptable in the public eye. This is why making a compromise that is clearly accommodating this attitude is not going to work. As it is, they can pretend that has nothing to do with it.

[Siansonea]

SorenTrigg wrote...

Sian, I do not care if the other viewpoint is valid or not. It is not about making people comfortable. It is about being fair and having more options. There are plenty of heterosexual romances, but if it comes to same sex romances we *have* to compromise to get them put in?
Why?
I get that it makes people uncomfortable and some people are against it. But...so? As has been pointed out, there are tons of things in the games that make plenty of people uncomfortable, but they still get put in. So why does this one specific subject matter so much if people are uncomfortable or not?
Please do not bring up sales, that is something that none of us can gauge here.

So, do you even read my answers? Or do you just cut and paste a "Why?" response whenever you see that someone has posted a new message on this thread? It's like a three-year-old in the back seat of the car constantly asking "are we there yet?" Guess what? We're not there yet.

Seriously, what world do you live in? "It's not about making people comfortable?" Let me see if I have this right. You want BioWare to take a controversial stance on the same-sex issue, and if the majority of consumers out there don't like it, they can just not buy the game. Does that summarize your position accurately? Yeah, good luck with that one. You ask why? M-O-N-E-Y, that's WHY. Now stop asking why.

I don't know, I guess you were raised to think that the world is a fair place, that people are fair, and that life is fair. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the world is NOT a fair place, people are NOT fair, and life is NOT fair. The sooner you accept that, and deal with the world the way it actually is, the better off we'll all be.

[Siansonea]

Em23 wrote...

 

Ryzaki wrote...Totally off topic: Is it normal if you've gone without eating for 3 weeks to only be able to eat 2 bites of something before feeling full to the point of bursting? 

OT i know but it's important.
By not eating for so long your body goes into starvation mode, your whole metabolism changes and your body will save the fat and go after muscle. It will only go back to fat when you are DYING.
At my uni there are always free bbqs and stuff on campus, the red cross etc. i'm sure it's not so different there: use them.
Be careful when you start eating again - your stomach will have shrunk (which is why you feel full after eating so little) and your metabolism will be very slow and you're likely to gain any weight you've lost.
Drink lots of water.

Siansonea II wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...
I think the main reason why people feel that way, is because why exactly should we have to accommodate people who oppose same sex romances?
There should be no reason to compromise for *same treatment*.

I get that sometimes you have to compromise, but why in this case? There are already heterosexual romances. People will lose *nothing* if same sex romances are put in. So, why?

Do I really have to say this again? Regardless of how wrong we feel the opposing viewpoint is, it is still a valid viewpoint for those individuals. It is their reality, and we should have enough respect for them to try to find a workable solution that benefits both groups. 

But it is not a valid view point.
It is nothing more than baseless intolerance with no logic or reasoning behind it and is generally unacceptable in the public eye. This is why making a compromise that is clearly accommodating this attitude is not going to work. As it is, they can pretend that has nothing to do with it.

Just because you and I don't agree with this viewpoint doesn't make it any less real for these people. There are plenty of illogical and unreasonable viewpoints that are held by a majority of people that I don't share. But guess what? It's not all about me, and it's not all about you either. If the rest of the world doesn't think the way you do, guess what? You are the one who is going to have to compromise, because no company is going to shoot themselves in the financial foot to appease a high-minded minority of customers. Sorry, idealistic young people, but them's the breaks. Have a good cry and come to the table with something besides "why can't the world be the way I want it to be?"

[Ziggy]

Siansonea II wrote...
 "It's not about making people comfortable?" Let me see if I have this right. You want BioWare to take a controversial stance on the same-sex issue, and if the majority of consumers out there don't like it, they can just not buy the game. Does that summarize your position accurately? Yeah, good luck with that one. You ask why? M-O-N-E-Y, that's WHY. Now stop asking why. 

I don't know, I guess you were raised to think that the world is a fair place, that people are fair, and that life is fair. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the world is NOT a fair place, people are NOT fair, and life is NOT fair. The sooner you accept that, and deal with the world the way it actually is, the better off we'll all be.

 
Harsh. But true.

Modifié par Em23, 03 mai 2010 - 12:19 .

[Ziggy]

Siansonea II wrote...

Em23 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
Do I really have to say this again? Regardless of how wrong we feel the opposing viewpoint is, it is still a valid viewpoint for those individuals. It is their reality, and we should have enough respect for them to try to find a workable solution that benefits both groups. 

But it is not a valid view point.
It is nothing more than baseless intolerance with no logic or reasoning behind it and is generally unacceptable in the public eye. This is why making a compromise that is clearly accommodating this attitude is not going to work. As it is, they can pretend that has nothing to do with it.

Just because you and I don't agree with this viewpoint doesn't make it any less real for these people. There are plenty of illogical and unreasonable viewpoints that are held by a majority of people that I don't share. But guess what? It's not all about me, and it's not all about you either. If the rest of the world doesn't think the way you do, guess what? You are the one who is going to have to compromise, because no company is going to shoot themselves in the financial foot to appease a high-minded minority of customers. Sorry, idealistic young people, but them's the breaks. Have a good cry and come to the table with something besides "why can't the world be the way I want it to be?"

I'm not saying it's not real, just that it's a view point that is unacceptable in the public eye for bioware to openly accommodate by such a compromise.
I would prefer it to the nothing they have now, but bioware won't do it because they would have to explain why they did it.
I agree with you, and but there is the extra problem that while bioware might want to cater for homophobia they cannot be seen to be doing it.

Modifié par Em23, 03 mai 2010 - 12:29 .

[Ryzaki]

True. BW doing it would make them look even worse than just leaving it out. At least with the leaving it out they can hide behind their whole "predetermined" and the characters don't swing that way excuses.

Edit: And thanks for the advice about water. LI water is frankly disgusting but I'll drink alot of it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 mai 2010 - 12:29 .

[Siansonea]

Em23 wrote...

*massive snippage*

I'm not saying it's not real, just that it's a view point that is unacceptable in the public eye for bioware to openly accommodate by such a compromise.
I would prefer it to the nothing they have now, but bioware won't do it because they would have to explain why they did it.
I agree with you, and but there is the extra problem that while bioware might want to cater for homophobia they cannot be seen to be doing it.

Unfortunately, this viewpoint is much more acceptable in the public eye than you might want to believe. Don't forget, there are just as many game buyers in rural Texas as there are on liberal college campuses. You might be surprised at how acceptable this attitude is in the quiet corners of the US and Canada. And there are probably some pretty non-progressive locales in the countries outside of North America as well.

[Ziggy]

Ryzaki wrote...
True. BW doing it would make them look even worse than just leaving it out. At least with the leaving it out they can hide behind their whole "predetermined" and the characters don't swing that way excuses.

Edit: And thanks for the advice about water. LI water is frankly disgusting but I'll drink alot of it.

And stop not eating now. I'd miss you on these forums if you died. Don't eat huge amounts of food at first, start off with little bits. I'm sure there's stuff on the net about this, look it up.

[Ziggy]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Em23 wrote...
But it is not a valid view point.
It is nothing more than baseless intolerance with no logic or reasoning behind it and is generally unacceptable in the public eye. This is why making a compromise that is clearly accommodating this attitude is not going to work. As it is, they can pretend that has nothing to do with it.

I don't see being against this proposal as being any less illogical or intolerant than the anti-homosexual s/s crowd's stance.  Unwilling to compromise.  My way or the highway.  Your going to take this way, and that is that.  That is what it sounds like too me. 

The logic is that bioware would look like they're accommodating homophobia (which they would be) and that would be bad for them.

edit: personally i would like to have it your way.

Modifié par Em23, 03 mai 2010 - 12:42 .

[Ziggy]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Em23 wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Em23 wrote...
But it is not a valid view point.
It is nothing more than baseless intolerance with no logic or reasoning behind it and is generally unacceptable in the public eye. This is why making a compromise that is clearly accommodating this attitude is not going to work. As it is, they can pretend that has nothing to do with it.

I don't see being against this proposal as being any less illogical or intolerant than the anti-homosexual s/s crowd's stance.  Unwilling to compromise.  My way or the highway.  Your going to take this way, and that is that.  That is what it sounds like too me. 

The logic is that bioware would look like they're accommodating homophobia (which they would be) and that would be bad for them.

edit: personally i would like to have it your way.

Maybe.....Maybe not....
I look at it slightly different though.  I just see it as a form of entertainment that I am customizing to my own preferances.  I don't look at it as if it is a vehicle for social change.
Regardless of building consensus, I do kinda like the idea.  I just wish that it wasn't so contentious, because I think it is kinda neat, and gives more freedom to the player overall.

I like the idea too, for all the reasons you mentioned. But it won't happen because of all the reasons i mentioned.

[Ryzaki]

Em23 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
True. BW doing it would make them look even worse than just leaving it out. At least with the leaving it out they can hide behind their whole "predetermined" and the characters don't swing that way excuses.

Edit: And thanks for the advice about water. LI water is frankly disgusting but I'll drink alot of it.

And stop not eating now. I'd miss you on these forums if you died. Don't eat huge amounts of food at first, start off with little bits. I'm sure there's stuff on the net about this, look it up.

I don't think I could eat a lot if I tried. But yeah I broke the fast already. *was considering not eating tomorrow and just drinking water but figured that might not be the wisest course of action*

No matter how much I enjoy the way my jeans feel now. *sighs*

On topic:  I don't know. I get the feeling this toggle would end up with them attacked from both sides. The pro side for needing the toggle and the anti side for placing it in regardless of a toggle or not.

Then we'd get the "well X isn't canon because it needs to be toggled!!!" nonsense. <_<

[Siansonea]

Ryzaki wrote...
*snip*

On topic:  I don't know. I get the feeling this toggle would end up with them attacked from both sides. The pro side for needing the toggle and the anti side for placing it in regardless of a toggle or not.

Then we'd get the "well X isn't canon because it needs to be toggled!!!" nonsense. <_<

I don't care what's canon and what isn't. My Shepards are my Shepards, and canon be hanged. By this logic, being an Adept/Infiltrator/Engineer or whatever isn't 'canon' because it's a toggle. BioWare's defaults are just a starting point for a custom Shepard, in my opinion, not a canon storyline.

[Ziggy]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

If you think about it, Bioware is accomodating both sides this way, not just one side. That is also how it can be received.

That's my point though. I don't think bioware wants to be seen to be accommodating homophobia.

They want to do it, but not so they have to admit that's what they're doing.