@Heindrich I prefer to split a thread instead of closing it Sometimes it's not possible, but if I can save a thread by splitting, I'll do it. In this case it's esier to make a slight topic renaming... there, done
Alright since @mlnevese expanded the scope of this discussion to include women, I shall elaborate on my personal views on the matter. I stress, just personal views and opinions.
I am all for the progress made in most countries where women are increasingly given equal opportunities as men to pursue their dreams and aspirations. However, I don't feel that all 'progress' is necessarily 'good progress', and demanding that people treat men and women equally in every single way, is not necessarily good progress. Let me explain before you burn me!
Frankly, men don't treat each other very well! And generally speaking, for good evolutionary reasons, men traditionally treat women and children better, because of an instinct to care and not perceiving them to be potential threats and/or competitors like other adult men. So @ajwz when old fashioned traditionalists like me use the term "women and children", I don't mean "weak and incapable", but "precious" and "ought to be protected/treated well". Is that such a an immorality? Do those demanding absolute equality really want all men to treat women in the same way as men treat each other? Not hesitating to beat each other senseless in fights? Not showing preferential treatment and 'being a gentleman'? Not hesitating to show mercy in warfare? Am I wrong to help a girl carry a heavy bag? Am I wrong to offer her my coat on a cold day?
I'd like to share this thought-provoking video on this issue. It does not support my case, (in fact she argues the opposite) but it does highlight some of the points I make.
Now in the FR Setting and many other game universes, women can be extremely powerful, and some are extremely evil. I have no issue with killing the many evil female characters you come across in the game. But my attitudes are shaped by a very different real world, so perhaps it is irrational, but for me, harming a female peasant is worse than harming a male peasant, and harming a child is worse still.
Men and women are not exactly the same in the real world. I personally think that it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are. I think femininity ought to be celebrated and appreciated, and traditional virtues and values ought to be preserved, whilst at the same time enabling women to pursue their aspirations and ambitions alongside men.
The most overall capable and remarkable friend I have had the fortune of meeting is a girl I met at Cambridge University. I would not be remotely surprised if she achieved something incredible in her lifetime. So I am not at all 'dismissive' of the ability of women, when I have met a woman who is my superior (and I do consider myself reasonably capable in my own right) in almost every aspect of life! In fact I think the only thing I beat her on was arm-wrestling, lol.
If some evil bastard kills children in Baldur's Gate, The Flaming Fist version of Arkanis Gath should port in and shank the CHARNAME and his party on the spot with a soul-stealing sentient sword that traps the soul within the sword to be consumed and regenerated repeatedly for all time. Attempts to reload past saved games of that character should result in a depiction of your character trapped in a glass bottle being stabbed with giant needles, and the gamer should have to restart from the beginning of the game. Realism is maintained and the player learns the proper lesson of what will happen to you body and soul if you kill children.
It's just another problem with our society. See a terrible problem? Pretend it's not there. Hope it goes away. World problems are real. They don't go away. Dealing with them is better than pretending they don't exist.
"let's not forget about the children in Africa?" Really? That line got brought into this topic somehow, and I couldn't help myself but laugh. Because dude, that's exactly what we all do everyday. Forget about them. I highly doubt you'll be getting on a plane to Africa to go help them. And making the children immortal beings in Baldur's Gate isn't going to help them either.
Viconia DeVir will tell you, the life of a drow child is anything but pleasant and in no way guaranteed. Some snot-nosed brat wondering the woods outside Beregost is just as likely to find a grim end. That's life. We can ignore it, be like the wizard of Oz (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain), or we can acknowledge it's existence and teach consequences. The world would be a better place if we stopped doing the former and started doing the latter.
@Heindrich My problem with your line of thinking actually has nothing to do with women. It has everything to do with men.
Why are men so disposable? Why do we so willingly throw our boys and brothers and husbands and fathers out to war without a second thought? People are not an infinite resource, no matter their gender.
In this book I'd read, there is a fictional society the author had created that eventually has to fight to defend their home. The protagonist, someone who was born and raised in this country, is shocked when she finds adolescent boys fighting on the front lines. To her people, the men are the precious ones. The women are the fighters, who aim to protect the men.
To suggest that a woman is more important to a man, and must be defended at a greater cost, not only portrays women in a weaker sense, but men as well. Because men are not important. Men are disposable soldiers that we can create more of like a factory. Nobody cares how many men die in a plane crash; everyone cares that nine women and five children were killed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with you carrying a girl's bag, or giving her a coat. That is a kindness that is well appreciated, and not something that should be scorned. No one is saying that chivalry is a bad thing. But I also don't think it's wrong if I (a woman) offer to carry a man's heavy bags, or hold the door open for an elder, or offer my coat to a young boy. Or for a man to do the same for other men! It shouldn't be about chivalry, it should be about kindness. Pure, indiscriminate kindness.
(All my interpretation. Feel free to disagree as you see fit.)
Alright since @mlnevese expanded the scope of this discussion to include women, I shall elaborate on my personal views on the matter. I stress, just personal views and opinions.
I am all for the progress made in most countries where women are increasingly given equal opportunities as men to pursue their dreams and aspirations. However, I don't feel that all 'progress' is necessarily 'good progress', and demanding that people treat men and women equally in every single way, is not necessarily good progress. Let me explain before you burn me!
Frankly, men don't treat each other very well! And generally speaking, for good evolutionary reasons, men traditionally treat women and children better, because of an instinct to care and not perceiving them to be potential threats and/or competitors like other adult men. So @ajwz when old fashioned traditionalists like me use the term "women and children", I don't mean "weak and incapable", but "precious" and "ought to be protected/treated well". Is that such a an immorality?
Do those demanding absolute equality really want all men to treat women in the same way as men treat each other? Not hesitating to beat each other senseless in fights? Not showing preferential treatment and 'being a gentleman'? Not hesitating to show mercy in warfare?
If you think this how men should behave, then I certainly wouldn't want to be around you.
Men and women are not exactly the same in the real world. I personally think that it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are. I think femininity ought to be celebrated and appreciated, and traditional virtues and values ought to be preserved, whilst at the same time enabling women to pursue their aspirations and ambitions alongside men.
Men and men are not the same in the real world. I think it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are and not treat each person according to their own individual attributes. You'd need not help a strong women to carry any bag but an armweak man might need your assistance. There's no reason to assume women are colder than men, and many shivering men might need that coat.
I more or less agree with what you say. The video I linked goes into the evolutionary reasons why men are expendable compared to women, and she pretty much argues your points, albeit in an even more radical style. Basically the answer is that human beings are mammals, which leads to a series of consequences that means that men and women are not exactly the same, and cultures have evolved to reflect that. One feature of this culture is that men are considered more expendable in crises, whether in war, natural disaster or accidents.
My point however was not that "men are expendable", but rather that women receive preferential treatment in certain areas, and as a traditionalist acknowledging the differences between men and women, and celebrating it, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
The video I linked was "anti-feminist" and "anti-chivalry". I am pro-chivalry.
Anyone else lost as to what this thread is supposed to be about? It says killing innocents in BG on the title...but a lot of what I'm seeing (especially on page 2) is a lot of general stuff about peoples perceptions of men and women in the real world.
The one, real issue I have with the children in the Baldur's Gate saga is that *all* of them are humans. I mean... where are the little Xvarts that happily play with Ursa the Cavebear? Or the teenage Gibberlings in their rebellious phase? Or the Fire Giant toddlers, who shake the very earth with their crawling? Or the plump, yet adorable larvae Ankhegs? Surely monsters deserve a happy family life as well, right?
Ugh... I knew these views would not be popular. But it does surprise me just how much people can take offence to the simple argument that "woman ought to be treated well", which does not imply "men ought to be treated badly". I do not appreciate words being put into my mouth or twisting what I said.
I am NOT advocating or promoting some crazy idea that men are expendable and can be treated badly. But it is a fact that on average, men are physically stronger than women, and men are typically more predisposed to violence.
Thus... is it so wrong of me to prefer a society where women have a degree of "extra protection"? Which is not to say that "it's okay for men to be violently assaulted".
If you think this how men should behave, then I certainly wouldn't want to be around you.
Did I at ANY stage say that this is how I think men SHOULD behave? I am talking about societal norms, and okay I exaggerated a little bit to make a point, but men typically have no qualms with fighting other men in a dispute, whilst (I'd like to think) that most would never physically attack a woman, no matter the dispute. I see the aversion to violence against women as a good thing, which does not mean that I think violence between men is acceptable.
Men and women are not exactly the same in the real world. I personally think that it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are. I think femininity ought to be celebrated and appreciated, and traditional virtues and values ought to be preserved, whilst at the same time enabling women to pursue their aspirations and ambitions alongside men.
Men and men are not the same in the real world. I think it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are and not treat each person according to their own individual attributes. You'd need not help a strong women to carry any bag but an armweak man might need your assistance. There's no reason to assume women are colder than men, and many shivering men might need that coat.
Yes I don't disagree with the above, but perhaps I am wrong, but I thought my statements did not need to come with a string of disclaimers.
Common sense would indicate that I mean a girl who is physically weaker than me, and one who is wearing less clothes than me (as girls typically do for the sake of fashion), and/or feeling the cold more than me.
Common sense would also suggest that a decent guy would help his male friends with a heavy load and share the burden, rather than saying "oh you're not a girl, you are on your own". Being a gentleman, or chivalrous, is not incompatible with being a good man to your fellow man, it is something extra, something positive.
Unless I feel misquoted or misunderstood again, I will not further this argument here. It is perhaps not the place to discuss this topic.
I am all for the progress made in most countries where women are increasingly given equal opportunities as men to pursue their dreams and aspirations. However, I don't feel that all 'progress' is necessarily 'good progress', and demanding that people treat men and women equally in every single way, is not necessarily good progress. Let me explain before you burn me!
This resonates with me as well. This push towards generalizing and homogenizing everything so that "Equal" means "Without variation" just seems anti-intuitive. There are differences between men and women, full stop. Biology proves this as quantifiable and distinct. it doesn't mean one is 'Better' than another. Nor does it mean that it is OK to treat one less well than the other. but there are absolute differences, and refusing to acknowledge that isn't 'Equality' so much as burying your head in the sand.
Should both men and women be equally allowed to pursue their individual goals equally? Heck yes. Should they be treated both with the same "Level" of fairness and respect? Absolutely. Should each be appreciated for their individual and distinct values and gifts and uniqueness? Beyond a doubt.
And therein lies the problem. If I can't appreciate a beautiful woman for being both beautiful AND a woman (or man for that matter), then that isn't equality. It's lying and calling it equality.
I also take @Heindrich's point in that saying "precious and to be protected" is an excellent interpretation. Not that some (or even all) women and children NEED that protection, merely that they are valued and precious.
Anyone else lost as to what this thread is supposed to be about? It says killing innocents in BG on the title...but a lot of what I'm seeing (especially on page 2) is a lot of general stuff about peoples perceptions of men and women in the real world.
Basically Heindrich, scriver, and the_spyder hijacked the thread from the topic of killing innocents/children in Baldur's gate to their own personal debate about equality of men and women.
It boils down to yet another thread that started off with a good topic but degenerated into what from an outsider's perspective looks like bickering between a republican and a democrat on CNN's "Crossfire" or FoxNews' O'Reilly Show.
I thought the title of the thread was better and the content simple to discuss or just express an oppinion. I dont care about every problem, wife rights or females vs males... soon we end up with gay rights vs animal rights etc. I have a budget of things i do care about or lets say where an interest is growing the more i learn! Could also be that my childhood is different to yours who knows!
Anyone else lost as to what this thread is supposed to be about? It says killing innocents in BG on the title...but a lot of what I'm seeing (especially on page 2) is a lot of general stuff about peoples perceptions of men and women in the real world.
Basically Heindrich, scriver, and the_spyder hijacked the thread from the topic of killing innocents/children in Baldur's gate to their own personal debate about equality of men and women.
It boils down to yet another thread that started off with a good topic but degenerated into what from an outsider's perspective looks like bickering between a republican and a democrat on CNN's "Crossfire" or FoxNews' O'Reilly Show.
Eh. I wouldn't say they've been particularily highjacky. They've just made particularily long posts. Personally I just got back from a nap that took a few more hours then it should've or I'd probably have written a long post or two myself in response and thus also have been one of the "highjackers". At this point it seems a bit redundant of me to jump in though. Ah well.
It's probably best not to make accusations at individual posters. If anyone thinks that the thread is particularly off topic, simply ignore their posts and bring it back around. Personal attacks are a sure way to magically summon the Mods.
I remember a big Huff when ToEE came out. There was apparently an 11th hour demand that all children be summarily removed from the game. this, at such a late date, caused all manner of bugs (in addition to the game already not being in a fit state for release) and even broke several major story lines. I think a better solution would have been to merely make the kids immortal and been done with it. I see no reason to depict the harm to children in video games.
Children are guilty until proven innocent, which in many cases, innocence is still doubtful.
I should know as I teach the guilty, I mean children, on a regular basis...
You will be surprised how many are guilty of not knowing how to tie there shoelaces or use a knife and fork correctly.
Death is too good for them...
I say, time for more experiments! Do they even realise their potential? Mwhahaha! The pain will only be passing... Now do these extremely hard sums... Mwhahah!
CHARCHILDREN lose 2hp through loss of will to live...
Comments
I am all for the progress made in most countries where women are increasingly given equal opportunities as men to pursue their dreams and aspirations. However, I don't feel that all 'progress' is necessarily 'good progress', and demanding that people treat men and women equally in every single way, is not necessarily good progress. Let me explain before you burn me!
Frankly, men don't treat each other very well! And generally speaking, for good evolutionary reasons, men traditionally treat women and children better, because of an instinct to care and not perceiving them to be potential threats and/or competitors like other adult men. So @ajwz when old fashioned traditionalists like me use the term "women and children", I don't mean "weak and incapable", but "precious" and "ought to be protected/treated well". Is that such a an immorality? Do those demanding absolute equality really want all men to treat women in the same way as men treat each other? Not hesitating to beat each other senseless in fights? Not showing preferential treatment and 'being a gentleman'? Not hesitating to show mercy in warfare? Am I wrong to help a girl carry a heavy bag? Am I wrong to offer her my coat on a cold day?
I'd like to share this thought-provoking video on this issue. It does not support my case, (in fact she argues the opposite) but it does highlight some of the points I make.
Now in the FR Setting and many other game universes, women can be extremely powerful, and some are extremely evil. I have no issue with killing the many evil female characters you come across in the game. But my attitudes are shaped by a very different real world, so perhaps it is irrational, but for me, harming a female peasant is worse than harming a male peasant, and harming a child is worse still.
Men and women are not exactly the same in the real world. I personally think that it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are. I think femininity ought to be celebrated and appreciated, and traditional virtues and values ought to be preserved, whilst at the same time enabling women to pursue their aspirations and ambitions alongside men.
The most overall capable and remarkable friend I have had the fortune of meeting is a girl I met at Cambridge University. I would not be remotely surprised if she achieved something incredible in her lifetime. So I am not at all 'dismissive' of the ability of women, when I have met a woman who is my superior (and I do consider myself reasonably capable in my own right) in almost every aspect of life! In fact I think the only thing I beat her on was arm-wrestling, lol.
If some evil bastard kills children in Baldur's Gate, The Flaming Fist version of Arkanis Gath should port in and shank the CHARNAME and his party on the spot with a soul-stealing sentient sword that traps the soul within the sword to be consumed and regenerated repeatedly for all time. Attempts to reload past saved games of that character should result in a depiction of your character trapped in a glass bottle being stabbed with giant needles, and the gamer should have to restart from the beginning of the game. Realism is maintained and the player learns the proper lesson of what will happen to you body and soul if you kill children.
It's just another problem with our society. See a terrible problem? Pretend it's not there. Hope it goes away. World problems are real. They don't go away. Dealing with them is better than pretending they don't exist.
"let's not forget about the children in Africa?" Really? That line got brought into this topic somehow, and I couldn't help myself but laugh. Because dude, that's exactly what we all do everyday. Forget about them. I highly doubt you'll be getting on a plane to Africa to go help them. And making the children immortal beings in Baldur's Gate isn't going to help them either.
Viconia DeVir will tell you, the life of a drow child is anything but pleasant and in no way guaranteed. Some snot-nosed brat wondering the woods outside Beregost is just as likely to find a grim end. That's life. We can ignore it, be like the wizard of Oz (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain), or we can acknowledge it's existence and teach consequences. The world would be a better place if we stopped doing the former and started doing the latter.
Why are men so disposable? Why do we so willingly throw our boys and brothers and husbands and fathers out to war without a second thought? People are not an infinite resource, no matter their gender.
In this book I'd read, there is a fictional society the author had created that eventually has to fight to defend their home. The protagonist, someone who was born and raised in this country, is shocked when she finds adolescent boys fighting on the front lines. To her people, the men are the precious ones. The women are the fighters, who aim to protect the men.
To suggest that a woman is more important to a man, and must be defended at a greater cost, not only portrays women in a weaker sense, but men as well. Because men are not important. Men are disposable soldiers that we can create more of like a factory. Nobody cares how many men die in a plane crash; everyone cares that nine women and five children were killed.
I don't think there's anything wrong with you carrying a girl's bag, or giving her a coat. That is a kindness that is well appreciated, and not something that should be scorned. No one is saying that chivalry is a bad thing. But I also don't think it's wrong if I (a woman) offer to carry a man's heavy bags, or hold the door open for an elder, or offer my coat to a young boy. Or for a man to do the same for other men! It shouldn't be about chivalry, it should be about kindness. Pure, indiscriminate kindness.
(All my interpretation. Feel free to disagree as you see fit.)
If you think this how men should behave, then I certainly wouldn't want to be around you.
Why would you not offer to carry a bag for a man? Why would you not give him your coat?
Men and men are not the same in the real world. I think it is unnecessary and unproductive to demand that we pretend that they are and not treat each person according to their own individual attributes. You'd need not help a strong women to carry any bag but an armweak man might need your assistance. There's no reason to assume women are colder than men, and many shivering men might need that coat.
I more or less agree with what you say. The video I linked goes into the evolutionary reasons why men are expendable compared to women, and she pretty much argues your points, albeit in an even more radical style. Basically the answer is that human beings are mammals, which leads to a series of consequences that means that men and women are not exactly the same, and cultures have evolved to reflect that. One feature of this culture is that men are considered more expendable in crises, whether in war, natural disaster or accidents.
My point however was not that "men are expendable", but rather that women receive preferential treatment in certain areas, and as a traditionalist acknowledging the differences between men and women, and celebrating it, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
The video I linked was "anti-feminist" and "anti-chivalry". I am pro-chivalry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime
Thus... is it so wrong of me to prefer a society where women have a degree of "extra protection"? Which is not to say that "it's okay for men to be violently assaulted". Did I at ANY stage say that this is how I think men SHOULD behave? I am talking about societal norms, and okay I exaggerated a little bit to make a point, but men typically have no qualms with fighting other men in a dispute, whilst (I'd like to think) that most would never physically attack a woman, no matter the dispute. I see the aversion to violence against women as a good thing, which does not mean that I think violence between men is acceptable. Yes I don't disagree with the above, but perhaps I am wrong, but I thought my statements did not need to come with a string of disclaimers.
Common sense would indicate that I mean a girl who is physically weaker than me, and one who is wearing less clothes than me (as girls typically do for the sake of fashion), and/or feeling the cold more than me.
Common sense would also suggest that a decent guy would help his male friends with a heavy load and share the burden, rather than saying "oh you're not a girl, you are on your own". Being a gentleman, or chivalrous, is not incompatible with being a good man to your fellow man, it is something extra, something positive.
Unless I feel misquoted or misunderstood again, I will not further this argument here. It is perhaps not the place to discuss this topic.
Should both men and women be equally allowed to pursue their individual goals equally? Heck yes. Should they be treated both with the same "Level" of fairness and respect? Absolutely. Should each be appreciated for their individual and distinct values and gifts and uniqueness? Beyond a doubt.
And therein lies the problem. If I can't appreciate a beautiful woman for being both beautiful AND a woman (or man for that matter), then that isn't equality. It's lying and calling it equality.
I also take @Heindrich's point in that saying "precious and to be protected" is an excellent interpretation. Not that some (or even all) women and children NEED that protection, merely that they are valued and precious.
It boils down to yet another thread that started off with a good topic but degenerated into what from an outsider's perspective looks like bickering between a republican and a democrat on CNN's "Crossfire" or FoxNews' O'Reilly Show.
Could also be that my childhood is different to yours who knows!
well... not worth it!
I remember a big Huff when ToEE came out. There was apparently an 11th hour demand that all children be summarily removed from the game. this, at such a late date, caused all manner of bugs (in addition to the game already not being in a fit state for release) and even broke several major story lines. I think a better solution would have been to merely make the kids immortal and been done with it. I see no reason to depict the harm to children in video games.
So if this has already been pointed out...
Children are guilty until proven innocent, which in many cases, innocence is still doubtful.
I should know as I teach the guilty, I mean children, on a regular basis...
You will be surprised how many are guilty of not knowing how to tie there shoelaces or use a knife and fork correctly.
Death is too good for them...
I say, time for more experiments! Do they even realise their potential? Mwhahaha! The pain will only be passing... Now do these extremely hard sums... Mwhahah!
CHARCHILDREN lose 2hp through loss of will to live...
*Anduin casts Larloch's Minor do fractions*
CHARCHILDREN save v will *fail*
CHARCHILDREN loses 4hp...
Mwhahaha! I love my job!