I don't see how saying that you shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know is "offending" you man.
I am not making any assumptions about you. I am speaking to basic human nature.
You absolutely WOULD treat a person different if you discovered information about them that ran contrary to your ideas about them, that defied your assumptions about that person. It doesn't matter if its they are gay, or they like Dungeons and Dragons, or are an Avid Jersey Shore fan.
If you assume one thing about a person and treat them one way because of that assumption, then new information would ALWAYS alter how you see them and change how you treat them. It's basic human nature.
I am not saying you would treat them badly or anything (As I said in my rather length post before this one). I am just saying how you would treat them would change, period. And it would. Sorry its basic human nature to change how you treat someone based on the information you have about them, as you learn more about them, and how your own view point alters the perception of that data. You can't escape that.
Saying you wouldn't change how you treat someone as you learn more about them is a patent lie. Sorry but it is. And adding your own erroneous assumptions about that person to the very start of it only adds a layer of complexity and possible awkwardness that need not be there.
I am sorry that it offends you that I am pointing out that you would behave like every other human person on the planet when getting to know someone. I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, I was merely trying to clarify my point so that you guys would understand what I mean.
I used the Person A and Person B example as just that an EXAMPLE to illustrate my point about assumptions. It could easily go the other way as well.
Overall, people are people and you should wait to hear what those people have to say to you about themselves instead of making assumptions based on nothing about them.
@egalor_original Pedophilia (and bestiality and necrophilia) are not the same as homosexuality... the latter involves two consenting adults, the former group does not.
What unites them, is that each of them appears due to a special state of one's morals, regardless of consent.
I'll allow freedom of expression on these forums, @egalor_original, but not when that expression exists as a persecution of other forum members. Veer away from bigoted judgments on people's morality, or we're going to have a problem.
(Yes, I said bigoted. These forums are hosted in Canada with quite a bit of help from moderators in the United States and other fairly progressive countries when it comes to sexuality. If you disagree with that, then either stay out of these topics, or consider finding a different forum.)
Apologies for harming someone with my alleged bigotry here, but I've only stated that such things like bestilaity, necrophilia, etc. are a result of one's morals. This is no more than a fact, and I did not expressly give any personal evaluations thereof. I cannot be held liable for one's impressions here regarding my implied opinion either.
@fiscotgaymer has expressed his disagreement with this fact. That is his right to deny the obvious
Apologies for harming someone with my alleged bigotry here, but I've only stated that such things like bestilaity, necrophilia, etc. are a result of one's morals. This is no more than a fact, and I did not expressly give any personal evaluations thereof. I cannot be held liable for one's impressions here regarding my implied opinion either.
@fiscotgaymer has expressed his disagreement with this fact. That is his right to deny the obvious
I'd agree with that to a large extent. Bestiality is regarded as bad, and yet as a society we are happy to eat animals, hunt them for fun and wear their skins. That seems to me to be to be a difficult to justify position.
The position for necrophilia isn't as clear cut but I think that's largely a result of society's views of the dead. Society doesn't have a problem with people having sex with blow up dolls or dildos, and yet those are no more alive.
Paedophilia (which you mentioned earlier) isn't really in the same category, but still there is a problem in that society has a single category for a huge range of activities. I wouldn't regard an 18 year old having sex with a 13 year old in the same category as a 40 year old having sex with a 4 year old. And yet society puts them both in the same category. Particularly given that young marriage was not that uncommon in the not too distant past (and still is in some parts of the world).
One's morals don't lead one to engage in bestiality or necrophilia, but sickness does and is the driving impulse that underlies conscious thought. And THAT is the problem with your statements on this forum, @egalor_original. Homosexual behavior is not a sickness, and that's a medical fact supported by psychiatrists, while bestiality and necrophilia are indicative of biospychological disorders that drive behavior.
We're having a discussion about sexuality in games and society, but you keep changing the subject toward your sick obsessions. I respectfully recommend that you go start your own forum post where you may philosophize to your heart's content about these sexual sicknesses that have captured your imagination.
One's morals don't lead one to engage in bestiality or necrophilia, but sickness does and is the driving impulse that underlies conscious thought.
Not so long ago homosexuality was regarded as a sickness and you could have found any number of doctors or psychiatrists to support that view. Society as a whole would have agreed with them. Society's views have now changed (for the better in my opinion).
Bestiality, homosexuality and indeed heterosexuality are biopsychological conditions which lead people prefer particular sexual partners. You could include celibacy in that list too. What criteria are you using to decide that some conditions are disorders and some are 'normal' behaviour? 'Normal' is nothing more than the product of society's opinion in any case.
If you regard sex as being solely for procreation, then anything other that heterosexuality would be a disorder. And even then, protected sex would be a disorder.
You could regard mutual consent as a necessity for 'normal' behaviour, which would lead bestiality as the disorder. But as mentioned above I'd have trouble reconciling that with society's view of killing, eating and skinning animals as being acceptable, normal behaviour.
Why can't I regard homosexualism as the same "sickness" as other despicable acts mentioned earlier? Because some LGBT/LGBT-influenced official in World Health Organization said not to?
Please also note, that I am not making any assessments regarding homosexuality, as the others here do.
@fitscotgaymer: That might be true. But you seem to see that 'change' as something negative. A change can also be positive. Knowing a person is gay can also lead to curiosity on the other party's part. It could lead to healthy discussions and getting to know this gay person even better. Not everyone who 'changes' will immediately stigmatisetheir friend just because of their sexual orientation. Sounds a bit short-sighted to me, or maybe I just misinterpreted your previous comment. I keep to my previous point about the majority of people being heterosexual, though. That's just a simple fact.
Why can't I regard homosexualism as the same "sickness" as other despicable acts mentioned earlier? Because some LGBT/LGBT-influenced official in World Health Organization said not to?
Please also note, that I am not making any assessments regarding homosexuality, as the others here do.
Wow, fail. =_=
Also, I'm leaving this here for everyone:
Obvious troll is obvious. I really don't get the passive aggressive crap I've been seeing here, nor the veiled attacks against LGBT people.
@egalor_original You are entitled to think what you will of homosexuality. However, forum rules dictate that you need to respect other members of the community. You are treading a fine line. I am referring to the following quote:
Why can't I regard homosexualism as the same "sickness" as other despicable acts mentioned earlier?
Realize that regardless of your view of things, others have other opinions and worldviews. By calling homosexuality a despicable act you are bound to hurt some feelings. If some form of sexuality offends or troubles you, explain why without calling it despicable. If your argument has any bearing, others will agree with you. And if they don't, hopefully you aren't above changing your own view.
Edit: @LadyRhian A bit late, but: Thank you for sharing your response from Ed! It's something I've been wanting to know.
Considering I repeatedly said that the change may not be negative. It might be a positive thing. I really don't see how you got that I think change = bad.
Unless you weren't reading my posts properly.
Basically long and short of my whole point was:- Treat people as a response to who they are, what they do, and how your relationship with them develops. Not how you think they are, what you think they are doing, or how you see your relationship with them developing. Because they aren't necessarily the same thing. And the latter can be (but may not be) damaging.
And you prove that youu have COMPLETELY missed the point Kitteh.
Oh well.
I am sorry I couldn't explain myself so you would understand where I am coming from; but I am unsure how to further clarify what I am saying at this point.
So I guess the only thing to do is to leave it at that.
"Man, I ain't got no quarrel with them gays". Homophobia is a luxury for people without real enemies or real problems...
You know, I've got no problem with LGBT as long as they are enjoying each other somewhere out of my view.
It is only when they step out, when they scream how "proud they are", when they occupy show business, when they shoot TV-shows shown during daytime on MTV, when they start involving minors in their doings, when they occupy my favourite games - I do start having problems with them. And not only me. The majority of normal people as well.
And that's because their attitude towards heterosexuals and heterosexual life is shocking for me. But who am I to complain?
And you prove that youu have COMPLETELY missed the point Kitteh.
Oh well.
I am sorry I couldn't explain myself so you would understand where I am coming from; but I am unsure how to further clarify what I am saying at this point.
So I guess the only thing to do is to leave it at that.
"Man, I ain't got no quarrel with them gays". Homophobia is a luxury for people without real enemies or real problems...
You know, I've got no problem with LGBT as long as they are enjoying each other somewhere out of my view.
It is only when they step out, when they scream how "proud they are", when they occupy show business, when they shoot TV-shows shown during daytime on MTV, when they start involving minors in their doings, when they occupy my favourite games - I do start having problems with them. And not only me. The majority of normal people as well.
And that's because their attitude towards heterosexuals and heterosexual life is shocking for me. But who am I to complain?
It's odd - from your previous posts I had taken you to be a very tolerant person, finding all tpes of sexual preference to be equally acceptable.
However your latest post strikes me as a very intolerant attitude. You're okay with LGBT as long as it stays in the closet?
Personally I have no issue with LGBT people being on TV (or indeed wherever). The only bit I could potentially agree with is involving minors if you mean in a sexual manner, but there are already laws to deal with that. I have no problem with LGBT people adopting children for example - they can be just as good parents as heterosexual couples.
In my ideal society we wouldn't care about such things. After all we don't care what color people's hair or eyes are, so it makes no sense to me that we care about skin color, sexual or religious preferences.
"Man, I ain't got no quarrel with them gays". Homophobia is a luxury for people without real enemies or real problems...
You know, I've got no problem with LGBT as long as they are enjoying each other somewhere out of my view.
It is only when they step out, when they scream how "proud they are", when they occupy show business, when they shoot TV-shows shown during daytime on MTV, when they start involving minors in their doings, when they occupy my favourite games - I do start having problems with them. And not only me. The majority of normal people as well.
And that's because their attitude towards heterosexuals and heterosexual life is shocking for me. But who am I to complain?
You see, that doesn't happen in BG:EE. You aren't forced into a romance with any of the girls of BG and you aren't forced to enter unarmed melee with Dorn, either. (In fact, from what I gather on the forums, it's actually not even quite simple and easy to miss, just as with Neera.)
As I said, you can effortlessly evade any hetero- or homosexual dalliances and concentrate on the things that really matter in the dungeon zone: gold, treasure, power.
"Man, I ain't got no quarrel with them gays". Homophobia is a luxury for people without real enemies or real problems...
You know, I've got no problem with LGBT as long as they are enjoying each other somewhere out of my view.
It is only when they step out, when they scream how "proud they are", when they occupy show business, when they shoot TV-shows shown during daytime on MTV, when they start involving minors in their doings, when they occupy my favourite games - I do start having problems with them. And not only me. The majority of normal people as well.
If seeing or hearing about people who are LGBT is unacceptable to you, then you do in fact have a problem with LGBT. And I'm curious where you got your information on "the majority of normal people".
@fitscotgaymer: I do understand your point. Look, I *do* respect gays, lesbians and whatever, but there's also something called 'agreeing to disagree'. Also, as off lately I'm getting the impression that discussing with certain LGTB people can be quite...tiresome. I have no need for complications. Just respect me and I'll respect you. Simple as that. If I have to think about every action I undertake, every word, every touch towards a gay person...if I have to be cautious to not offend them (truth be told, some LGTB people are very easy to offend), is it still worth it? In general: I don't make a fuss about things. I had LGB friends in real life and even though they were LGTB, I never treated them differently. But you know what offends me? Gay parades. Yeah. Because I think such a thing is unnecessary. Gays can be proud of themselves, but that still doesn't mean they have to go smear their sexual orientation in other people's faces. Heterosexual people also don't scream 'Hey guys, look at me, I'm a 100% hot-blooded heterosexual man/woman!11!!!1'. Also, some gay people think that because of their sexual orientation, they're special, superior to other people because they're different. Can't stand that either. I respect people such as @Shandyr, who are gay, but who aren't 'forcing' this upon others, people you can talk to without feeling uncomfortable (I've experienced a few of such cases, unfortunately), people who may have a different sexual orientation, but who are chill about it. People who don't go screaming LGTB to the rest of the world like it's the next huge hype. Because THOSE things are what sometimes annoys me when it comes to the LGTB community. Forgive me my honesty.
You know, I've got no problem with LGBT as long as they are enjoying each other somewhere out of my view.
It is only when they step out, when they scream how "proud they are", when they occupy show business, when they shoot TV-shows shown during daytime on MTV, when they start involving minors in their doings, when they occupy my favourite games - I do start having problems with them. And not only me. The majority of normal people as well.
And that's because their attitude towards heterosexuals and heterosexual life is shocking for me. But who am I to complain?
You have no problem with us as long asnwe are virtually unseen? I'm not going to hide from you just because of your beliefs. I am very fortunate that I own my life and I control my own actions - and not you. I am proud to be who I am and I don't throw it in anyone's face, thanks.
Second, there are already laws that protect children. That is common knowledge.
It's obvious that you're only here to troll and flame-bait, which is pretty sad. Go find something better to do with your timeband stop wasting ours.
Comments
http://gaygamer.net/2007/03/top_10_gayest_tabletop_charact_9.html
I don't see how saying that you shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know is "offending" you man.
I am not making any assumptions about you. I am speaking to basic human nature.
You absolutely WOULD treat a person different if you discovered information about them that ran contrary to your ideas about them, that defied your assumptions about that person.
It doesn't matter if its they are gay, or they like Dungeons and Dragons, or are an Avid Jersey Shore fan.
If you assume one thing about a person and treat them one way because of that assumption, then new information would ALWAYS alter how you see them and change how you treat them. It's basic human nature.
I am not saying you would treat them badly or anything (As I said in my rather length post before this one). I am just saying how you would treat them would change, period. And it would. Sorry its basic human nature to change how you treat someone based on the information you have about them, as you learn more about them, and how your own view point alters the perception of that data. You can't escape that.
Saying you wouldn't change how you treat someone as you learn more about them is a patent lie. Sorry but it is.
And adding your own erroneous assumptions about that person to the very start of it only adds a layer of complexity and possible awkwardness that need not be there.
I am sorry that it offends you that I am pointing out that you would behave like every other human person on the planet when getting to know someone. I certainly wasn't trying to offend anyone, I was merely trying to clarify my point so that you guys would understand what I mean.
I used the Person A and Person B example as just that an EXAMPLE to illustrate my point about assumptions. It could easily go the other way as well.
Overall, people are people and you should wait to hear what those people have to say to you about themselves instead of making assumptions based on nothing about them.
No.
Just no.
I can't even go any further into it than that. No.
(Yes, I said bigoted. These forums are hosted in Canada with quite a bit of help from moderators in the United States and other fairly progressive countries when it comes to sexuality. If you disagree with that, then either stay out of these topics, or consider finding a different forum.)
@fiscotgaymer has expressed his disagreement with this fact. That is his right to deny the obvious
It isn't obvious because it isn't true.
Clearly you understand NOTHING about sexuality.
The position for necrophilia isn't as clear cut but I think that's largely a result of society's views of the dead. Society doesn't have a problem with people having sex with blow up dolls or dildos, and yet those are no more alive.
Paedophilia (which you mentioned earlier) isn't really in the same category, but still there is a problem in that society has a single category for a huge range of activities. I wouldn't regard an 18 year old having sex with a 13 year old in the same category as a 40 year old having sex with a 4 year old. And yet society puts them both in the same category. Particularly given that young marriage was not that uncommon in the not too distant past (and still is in some parts of the world).
We're having a discussion about sexuality in games and society, but you keep changing the subject toward your sick obsessions. I respectfully recommend that you go start your own forum post where you may philosophize to your heart's content about these sexual sicknesses that have captured your imagination.
Bestiality, homosexuality and indeed heterosexuality are biopsychological conditions which lead people prefer particular sexual partners. You could include celibacy in that list too. What criteria are you using to decide that some conditions are disorders and some are 'normal' behaviour? 'Normal' is nothing more than the product of society's opinion in any case.
If you regard sex as being solely for procreation, then anything other that heterosexuality would be a disorder. And even then, protected sex would be a disorder.
You could regard mutual consent as a necessity for 'normal' behaviour, which would lead bestiality as the disorder. But as mentioned above I'd have trouble reconciling that with society's view of killing, eating and skinning animals as being acceptable, normal behaviour.
Please also note, that I am not making any assessments regarding homosexuality, as the others here do.
@egalor_original
I use science as my criteria to make these statements. What do you use?
Also, I'm leaving this here for everyone:
Obvious troll is obvious. I really don't get the passive aggressive crap I've been seeing here, nor the veiled attacks against LGBT people.
You are entitled to think what you will of homosexuality. However, forum rules dictate that you need to respect other members of the community. You are treading a fine line. I am referring to the following quote: Realize that regardless of your view of things, others have other opinions and worldviews. By calling homosexuality a despicable act you are bound to hurt some feelings. If some form of sexuality offends or troubles you, explain why without calling it despicable. If your argument has any bearing, others will agree with you. And if they don't, hopefully you aren't above changing your own view.
Edit: @LadyRhian A bit late, but: Thank you for sharing your response from Ed! It's something I've been wanting to know.
Considering I repeatedly said that the change may not be negative. It might be a positive thing. I really don't see how you got that I think change = bad.
Unless you weren't reading my posts properly.
Basically long and short of my whole point was:- Treat people as a response to who they are, what they do, and how your relationship with them develops. Not how you think they are, what you think they are doing, or how you see your relationship with them developing. Because they aren't necessarily the same thing. And the latter can be (but may not be) damaging.
Oh well.
I am sorry I couldn't explain myself so you would understand where I am coming from; but I am unsure how to further clarify what I am saying at this point.
So I guess the only thing to do is to leave it at that.
It is only when they step out, when they scream how "proud they are", when they occupy show business, when they shoot TV-shows shown during daytime on MTV, when they start involving minors in their doings, when they occupy my favourite games - I do start having problems with them. And not only me. The majority of normal people as well.
And that's because their attitude towards heterosexuals and heterosexual life is shocking for me. But who am I to complain?
However your latest post strikes me as a very intolerant attitude. You're okay with LGBT as long as it stays in the closet?
Personally I have no issue with LGBT people being on TV (or indeed wherever). The only bit I could potentially agree with is involving minors if you mean in a sexual manner, but there are already laws to deal with that. I have no problem with LGBT people adopting children for example - they can be just as good parents as heterosexual couples.
In my ideal society we wouldn't care about such things. After all we don't care what color people's hair or eyes are, so it makes no sense to me that we care about skin color, sexual or religious preferences.
As I said, you can effortlessly evade any hetero- or homosexual dalliances and concentrate on the things that really matter in the dungeon zone: gold, treasure, power.
You have no problem with us as long asnwe are virtually unseen? I'm not going to hide from you just because of your beliefs. I am very fortunate that I own my life and I control my own actions - and not you. I am proud to be who I am and I don't throw it in anyone's face, thanks.
Second, there are already laws that protect children. That is common knowledge.
It's obvious that you're only here to troll and flame-bait, which is pretty sad. Go find something better to do with your timeband stop wasting ours.