Go back to the post by ami that started this. She did say she was being discriminated against.
I know you're not drawing that connection, you're purposely ignoring it because you know that it doesn't suit you. In fact, you are advocating that once the door was opened for male gay relationships, the same should be done for female gay relationships.
As for my "theory" regarding motivations for advocacy, that's certainly true for ami. Your motivation is apparently arguing for the sake of arguing.
(EDIT: And yes, I mostly linked to that article because I like Cracked.com more than because the article is relevant as a whole. But still--something to think about.)
@Tanthalas: If that's the only conclusion you've reached after everything that's been said here, then I rather think it's futile to take this any further.
There's a gender: Prejudice. There's an specie: homossexual prejudice.
Prejudice (in all it's forms) is the big picture of homossexual prejudice.
We're making arguments here about acts of acceptance and inclusion atm (unless i'm totally crazy, it's what's been discussed for a while since @Ami 's lesbian protest was made).
Pointed that:
"I'm not drawing that connection, though - you are. The topic of racial minorities didn't come up until you stated that allowing every minority to be represented in every game was impossible (as if once you open the door to one, you must immediately open the door to all). And while there's a conversation to be had on that topic, I don't think it can or should be folded into this one."
WOW, from what's labeled in that statement we should continue the discussion ONLY using the small picture, ONLY working the homossexual prejudice? For the gender: prejudice, homossexual prejudice is a symptom, and we can't work on the core of the problem?
"And finally, your theory regarding motivations for advocacy is blatantly untrue: I am not a lesbian, and my position is not one of self-interest."
Not a lesbian maybe, but an radical, and anything that put fuel in the fire is wellcome when people want to radicalize.
On the contrary: it would have been very easy to avoid this problem by making Neera available to female players as well. Then you'd have a straight male character, a bisexual male character and a bisexual female character (with the latter two functioning as straight romance options if your PC is opposite-sex).
Personally, I don't think that this is an ideal solution. Before I say anything else, I should probably explain what the ideal game would have, in my opinion:
I don't, for example, enjoy when games simply make every character bisexual, or have an alternating sexuality based on what gender you play. It feels like that takes something away from the character, like sexuality is just something that can be changed at a whim. Personally, I would love to see a joinable character that is either gay or lesbian, only romanceable by the same sex, but I'm not holding Beamdog responsible for including anyone like that, or saying (as started by Ami), that I'm being discriminated against for its lack of inclusion. I want a character's sexuality to be reflected by their backstory or personality. If when writing Neera, they decided that she's a heterosexual, then I want them to keep it that way, not turn her bisexual because one of the guys they wrote happened to be.
However, when a developer makes a gesture of inclusion, and states that this gesture is meant to provide exactly the diversity that underrepresented minority groups could never take for granted, I think it's somewhat unfair to summarily dismiss the concerns of a member of that minority. That's what started this whole flare-up in the first place, and that - in my opinion - is what needs to be looked at.
Where was this stated? If it was mentioned that way, then I can see how this might have gotten out of hand, but I would have to see the statement first.
@Aosaw, the number 3 is for my post? If it is i'm failing to see where it'sshady or flat-out dishonest.
I did 3 things in the last post:
1° agreed with @Tanthalas last post. 2° i described an diference between a large picture and a small picture of events. 3° Told that radical people don't need to direct benefit from an argument as long it fuel the radicalism.
With all due respect to the study, i have my reservations against anything that try to label robotic fallacy behaviors, generalization is something dangeours also, and we shouldn't believe in everything that we read on internet anyway, but just to let clear, i read some of the stuff there and the article is very nice and cool.
The use of an strict scientific study, made to study overhaul behaviors, to belittle an argument, trying to fit the fought argument in the pre-generated label of an study that isn't meant to do that could be taken as a 6° form of fallacy, also.
It's funny cos if we use this article to define anything, i have to ask:
Did anyone read the N° 1 "#1. Facts Don't Change Our Minds"? It's very funny how this one fit this whole thread, IF we accept fit opinions in pre-made labels of fallacy. The number one is kind of a truth at some point, people normally don't use coherence in discussions, but self-interests, but that's as i said, is "normally", and the exceptions can change the world.
@Mechalibur, the funny thing about the last @shawne's argument that you quoted, is that he think's that the protest made here on the forum where the start up of this inclusion, as if some half-dozen radicalists trying to make a revolution would be enough to do that.
The inclusion of a bissexual character comes from a change on our own society, cos as i said A LOT OF TIMES ALREADY, time is on the side of the homossexual minority, if they're yet a minority in number terms, cos i know a lot of people that's gay or bi, some closeted and others not so much. In the last gay parade in Rio de Janeiro, were counted a number of 270.000 participants.
Each time more our society moves toward acceptance and inclusion, but that's not instantly as some people want, cos prejudice has an history base and time is the only tool that can do this job. This isn't a magic world where we click the fingers and make an centuries old problem to simply vanish.
@kamuizin First of all, it's not a proper study; one of the things that I like about Cracked.com is that it's literally a bunch of folks who like to riff on ideas--what they post on their website is what happens when those riffs hit a note of truth (edit: or hilarious). I thought it was appropriate, but by no means should it be taken as scientific.
The part of your post that matched #3 was the bit about radicals being only interested in being radical for radicalness's sake--i.e. assuming that your opponent is "up to no good". In other words, "You don't agree with me, so you must be just trying to stir up trouble like you always do you big meanie." (Sometimes I slip into Cracked rhetoric... My lunch breaks are long...)
#1 is a pretty good description of The Internet.
To be absolutely clear, though, I didn't mean to disparage anyone personally. But this thread has fallen into a number of traps, most of which are described in that article, and all of which do and will continue to result in nothing productive getting done ever. That's not limited to just this topic, but it holds true regardless.
There's also a lot of good rhetoric going around, and I encourage that; but the fallacies mentioned in the above article are what makes it difficult for anyone to process the positive rhetoric, because once the frothing at the mouth starts, it's hard to stop it long enough to read things carefully and realize that nobody was actually attacking you personally. Except that guy, right there.
I give you that, my radicalism comment could be taken as reaction, ok (i even spoke about being reactive in another previous post), but i really believe that some people in this thread just want to fuel the fire, i have some reasons to believe like that and some posts in this thread are proof enough for this.
In a general stance the #1° argument could define the internet in general, but it fit specifically well in this thread, for that reason i raised that argument, more for the fun of it than anything else.
And at last, if my avatar wasn't soo awersome, i could use this one, very cool in fact.
Ps: there where really some direct attacks to me, people isn't stupid, they will not name me when the worst adjecties are being spread, but if you really, really want, i can make a search in this thread and point those posts for you.
Ps2: My agree with your post is solely because i really agreed with your last post, just to avoid a misunderstand, don't take it as irony, neither as a smart ass way to crumble the article's statement.
I will grant you that people can be just awful sometimes, especially when it comes to issues they care about.
That's part of why it's impolite to talk politics or religion in mixed company--no matter how polite you think you're being, some bloke (also been watching a lot of Mitchell & Webb, so, you know, sorry for that) decides that you're being a--oh dear, that sentence got away from me, didn't it?
Suffice to say that people usually choose to be offended because, in certain cases, people are usually trying to be offensive. So it triggers a kind of subconscious reaction against the oppressive "other", even when it's not something oppressive, simply because it's what they're used to.
I had a reaction like that once, when a friend of mine said that soap opera actors weren't real actors. My brother's dad is an actor on a soap opera, and I reacted to what my subconscious said, which was that my friend was saying my brother's dad wasn't a real actor--when actually, what my friend was saying was a joke about the general quality of soap operas as a whole.
I haven't looked at this thread since page 10 or something (I forget). You people have since then continued the pathetic self justification of your religion, gender and orientation. Why?
My suggestion is you stop trying to justify whatever sad lives you have, all of you. There is nothing to justify because your base character does not matter.
What should matter is you as a person and judging by this thread you represent yourselves as obnoxious and dominating. The elaborately carved sentences serve no purpose other than prove your literacy, not your real point.
A hint of advice, read the 10 pages that you missed @Ward. If a high stance moral statement would make people see the mistakes of their acts, this thread wouldn't had more than 8 pages.
@kamuizin Nah I meant that we should all be friends. Not you and me. Not that I don't want to be your friend, but I think we should all get along because we divide each other through pathetic argument which means we don't stand together against the real threat.
@Aosaw Covered son, America has Joe Biden, China has their Wall, Britain has flood gates, Europe has the Russians and Australia has America (or so we think, we're so trusting).
@kamuizin- your reaction just confirms my point. i'm not waging a war against you, and you also like and agree with posts that counter me. shall i accuse you of foul play also?
i've stated my opinion more than clear and direct enough, yet all you do is play a victim of "radical pro-homosexual activist". do i find that laughable? extremely. if you want to see what radicalism actually is go and google it.
all i was doing all the time is taking a FIRM stance on HUMAN RIGHTS, and that should not be traded about because you perceive yourself in minority and/or attacked on a forum. oh, and while we are at that- welcome to the club.
@Ward oh wow, thank you for contribution to the discussion, and for descending from high heavens and showing us all how small we are. i now realize the error of my ways. of all our ways.
and btw, i love how you display your superiority by informing us you didn't read anything from page 10. great stuff.
Did i said anytime that you're waging a war against me @trinit? I don't complain about agrees with posts that counter me, i found that a nice way of argument in fact.
My reference to your posts where only and just only:
"I didn't had a huge problem with @Trinit until now, some sociable misunderstands at all but i know he solely disagree with me by his own way to show that (agrees on every post that counter something i say) and i'm ok with that, a very polite way to disagree."
I do not find myself a victim of pro-homossexual radicals as all we're doing here is discussing a subject, but you want to know what i find laughable? A minority that fight for recognizion and tolerance in a forum using radicalism and intolerance against other persons opinions.
You don't take a firm stance for human rights by attacking anyone that don't think like you, that's just a subversion of the concept human rights. I take a firm stance for acceptance and my personal opinions haven't even a moral stance (as most of my opinions for almost anything), so accept my opinion in no way harm acceptance.
intolerance has many forms dude, i have no doubt that you have your reasons to be defensive, but don't repeat the cycle with me, i'm not your enemy neither an enemy of what you defend.
Trust me when I say that Dave is an open-minded fellow when it comes to characterizations, and that--although it might not be possible to boost the demographics for the other twenty-five NPCs--he'll do his best to make sure no one is "left out". I'm also working on an NPC mod that allows for this kind of thing, so you have that to look forward to as well.
To my mind, this thread has served its purpose and run its course. Anything further will either be rehashing the same statements or starting another argument leading nowhere. Either way...
Comments
Go back to the post by ami that started this. She did say she was being discriminated against.
I know you're not drawing that connection, you're purposely ignoring it because you know that it doesn't suit you. In fact, you are advocating that once the door was opened for male gay relationships, the same should be done for female gay relationships.
As for my "theory" regarding motivations for advocacy, that's certainly true for ami. Your motivation is apparently arguing for the sake of arguing.
(EDIT: And yes, I mostly linked to that article because I like Cracked.com more than because the article is relevant as a whole. But still--something to think about.)
There's a gender: Prejudice.
There's an specie: homossexual prejudice.
Prejudice (in all it's forms) is the big picture of homossexual prejudice.
We're making arguments here about acts of acceptance and inclusion atm (unless i'm totally crazy, it's what's been discussed for a while since @Ami 's lesbian protest was made).
Pointed that:
"I'm not drawing that connection, though - you are. The topic of racial minorities didn't come up until you stated that allowing every minority to be represented in every game was impossible (as if once you open the door to one, you must immediately open the door to all). And while there's a conversation to be had on that topic, I don't think it can or should be folded into this one."
WOW, from what's labeled in that statement we should continue the discussion ONLY using the small picture, ONLY working the homossexual prejudice? For the gender: prejudice, homossexual prejudice is a symptom, and we can't work on the core of the problem?
"And finally, your theory regarding motivations for advocacy is blatantly untrue: I am not a lesbian, and my position is not one of self-interest."
Not a lesbian maybe, but an radical, and anything that put fuel in the fire is wellcome when people want to radicalize.
Heterosexual Characters
Bisexual Characters
Gay/Lesbian Characters
I don't, for example, enjoy when games simply make every character bisexual, or have an alternating sexuality based on what gender you play. It feels like that takes something away from the character, like sexuality is just something that can be changed at a whim. Personally, I would love to see a joinable character that is either gay or lesbian, only romanceable by the same sex, but I'm not holding Beamdog responsible for including anyone like that, or saying (as started by Ami), that I'm being discriminated against for its lack of inclusion. I want a character's sexuality to be reflected by their backstory or personality. If when writing Neera, they decided that she's a heterosexual, then I want them to keep it that way, not turn her bisexual because one of the guys they wrote happened to be. Where was this stated? If it was mentioned that way, then I can see how this might have gotten out of hand, but I would have to see the statement first.
I did 3 things in the last post:
1° agreed with @Tanthalas last post.
2° i described an diference between a large picture and a small picture of events.
3° Told that radical people don't need to direct benefit from an argument as long it fuel the radicalism.
With all due respect to the study, i have my reservations against anything that try to label robotic fallacy behaviors, generalization is something dangeours also, and we shouldn't believe in everything that we read on internet anyway, but just to let clear, i read some of the stuff there and the article is very nice and cool.
The use of an strict scientific study, made to study overhaul behaviors, to belittle an argument, trying to fit the fought argument in the pre-generated label of an study that isn't meant to do that could be taken as a 6° form of fallacy, also.
It's funny cos if we use this article to define anything, i have to ask:
Did anyone read the N° 1 "#1. Facts Don't Change Our Minds"? It's very funny how this one fit this whole thread, IF we accept fit opinions in pre-made labels of fallacy. The number one is kind of a truth at some point, people normally don't use coherence in discussions, but self-interests, but that's as i said, is "normally", and the exceptions can change the world.
@Mechalibur, the funny thing about the last @shawne's argument that you quoted, is that he think's that the protest made here on the forum where the start up of this inclusion, as if some half-dozen radicalists trying to make a revolution would be enough to do that.
The inclusion of a bissexual character comes from a change on our own society, cos as i said A LOT OF TIMES ALREADY, time is on the side of the homossexual minority, if they're yet a minority in number terms, cos i know a lot of people that's gay or bi, some closeted and others not so much. In the last gay parade in Rio de Janeiro, were counted a number of 270.000 participants.
Each time more our society moves toward acceptance and inclusion, but that's not instantly as some people want, cos prejudice has an history base and time is the only tool that can do this job. This isn't a magic world where we click the fingers and make an centuries old problem to simply vanish.
The part of your post that matched #3 was the bit about radicals being only interested in being radical for radicalness's sake--i.e. assuming that your opponent is "up to no good". In other words, "You don't agree with me, so you must be just trying to stir up trouble like you always do you big meanie." (Sometimes I slip into Cracked rhetoric... My lunch breaks are long...)
#1 is a pretty good description of The Internet.
To be absolutely clear, though, I didn't mean to disparage anyone personally. But this thread has fallen into a number of traps, most of which are described in that article, and all of which do and will continue to result in nothing productive getting done ever. That's not limited to just this topic, but it holds true regardless.
There's also a lot of good rhetoric going around, and I encourage that; but the fallacies mentioned in the above article are what makes it difficult for anyone to process the positive rhetoric, because once the frothing at the mouth starts, it's hard to stop it long enough to read things carefully and realize that nobody was actually attacking you personally. Except that guy, right there.
Smug bastard.
In a general stance the #1° argument could define the internet in general, but it fit specifically well in this thread, for that reason i raised that argument, more for the fun of it than anything else.
And at last, if my avatar wasn't soo awersome, i could use this one, very cool in fact.
Ps: there where really some direct attacks to me, people isn't stupid, they will not name me when the worst adjecties are being spread, but if you really, really want, i can make a search in this thread and point those posts for you.
Ps2: My agree with your post is solely because i really agreed with your last post, just to avoid a misunderstand, don't take it as irony, neither as a smart ass way to crumble the article's statement.
That's part of why it's impolite to talk politics or religion in mixed company--no matter how polite you think you're being, some bloke (also been watching a lot of Mitchell & Webb, so, you know, sorry for that) decides that you're being a--oh dear, that sentence got away from me, didn't it?
Suffice to say that people usually choose to be offended because, in certain cases, people are usually trying to be offensive. So it triggers a kind of subconscious reaction against the oppressive "other", even when it's not something oppressive, simply because it's what they're used to.
I had a reaction like that once, when a friend of mine said that soap opera actors weren't real actors. My brother's dad is an actor on a soap opera, and I reacted to what my subconscious said, which was that my friend was saying my brother's dad wasn't a real actor--when actually, what my friend was saying was a joke about the general quality of soap operas as a whole.
It was awkward. But it happens.
My suggestion is you stop trying to justify whatever sad lives you have, all of you. There is nothing to justify because your base character does not matter.
What should matter is you as a person and judging by this thread you represent yourselves as obnoxious and dominating. The elaborately carved sentences serve no purpose other than prove your literacy, not your real point.
For the record I've missed like 21 pages or something.
The real threat... businessmen.
Waste of money that rabbit-proof fence turned out to be...
The bunnies can't get anyone.
i've stated my opinion more than clear and direct enough, yet all you do is play a victim of "radical pro-homosexual activist". do i find that laughable? extremely. if you want to see what radicalism actually is go and google it.
all i was doing all the time is taking a FIRM stance on HUMAN RIGHTS, and that should not be traded about because you perceive yourself in minority and/or attacked on a forum. oh, and while we are at that- welcome to the club.
and btw, i love how you display your superiority by informing us you didn't read anything from page 10. great stuff.
My reference to your posts where only and just only:
"I didn't had a huge problem with @Trinit until now, some sociable misunderstands at all but i know he solely disagree with me by his own way to show that (agrees on every post that counter something i say) and i'm ok with that, a very polite way to disagree."
I do not find myself a victim of pro-homossexual radicals as all we're doing here is discussing a subject, but you want to know what i find laughable? A minority that fight for recognizion and tolerance in a forum using radicalism and intolerance against other persons opinions.
You don't take a firm stance for human rights by attacking anyone that don't think like you, that's just a subversion of the concept human rights. I take a firm stance for acceptance and my personal opinions haven't even a moral stance (as most of my opinions for almost anything), so accept my opinion in no way harm acceptance.
intolerance has many forms dude, i have no doubt that you have your reasons to be defensive, but don't repeat the cycle with me, i'm not your enemy neither an enemy of what you defend.
I think, again, it's time to close the thread.
Trust me when I say that Dave is an open-minded fellow when it comes to characterizations, and that--although it might not be possible to boost the demographics for the other twenty-five NPCs--he'll do his best to make sure no one is "left out". I'm also working on an NPC mod that allows for this kind of thing, so you have that to look forward to as well.
To my mind, this thread has served its purpose and run its course. Anything further will either be rehashing the same statements or starting another argument leading nowhere. Either way...
@Tanthalas, it's time.
I'd rather keep this open, but I am tired of reading the same stuff over and over.
I won't close new threads about this, but I hope to not see the same stuff being tossed around.