This is the natural progression of discussion. It is always relevant to juxtapose real life (something we know) with that which emulates it (the game). Would you complain if an MMO economics topic included real world economic theory?
I wasn't "complaining", I said it was interesting/amusing. Not the same. I would expect an ingame economics thread to include examples of real world economics too. You're right that real life examples get frequently juxtaposed into in game topics. I was just commenting (not complaining) that I found it interesting that the topics start out as "should same *** marriage be allowed in game?" and eventually become "Should it be allowed IRL?" and the topic of "Should it be allowed ingame" becomes left behind in the course of the thread. Eventually the thread is no longer about the game at all, but about actual *** marriage, as evidenced by the discussion you and I are having now.
If this was true than there wouldn't be such a radical shift in *** support over the last 20 years. People mature and change their minds all the time.
I do believe that people change their minds, but I don't think there is a "radical change in support" so much as there is "people who support it becoming louder and people who are opposed to it are not arguing as much". I do believe support is being gained for it, but not a "radical change". We'll have to agree to disagree on that point though, because I have a feeling I'm not going to change your mind, but I could be mistaken.
I doubt most debate threads of this nature accomplish anything substantial either. It does afford the chance, however, for people to express their opinions whichever side of the issue they may be on.
I agree with the latter part of what you said; any thread with the possibility of two or more viewpoints (i.e. nearly every thread on every topic) from bacon mages to level cap raises to adjusting promathia missions offer people the opportunity to voice their opinion. That's the whole point of a forum. I was just saying (and you agreed) that when it comes down to threads that are socially/politically based, very few people, if anyone, are going to change their minds. It's just the same people arguing the same points until the thread is locked or forgotten. It doesn't accomplish anything tangible (unless you count a lot of +1ing and wasted time typing long posts)
Is this some sort of allusion to "THE *** AGENDA!" that opponents of *** marriage always seem to reference? There are several big name, single player games that allow same *** interactions and I haven't once seen any of them turned into a political tool.
That's largely because of a reason I cited later after editing my first post; about how people are primarily interested in wanting what they CAN'T have. In an example where a same *** couple CAN romantically interact (e.g. Mass Effect off the top of my head), no one from the "pro *** rights" side had any issue because this medium already provided them WITH something, as opposed to saying they CAN'T have it.
The fact that you have to "prove" you're okay with gays through the classic "I have a *** friend of friend!" discredits you more than helps.
I figured I'd bring up something before I got hit with "You probably don't know anyone who is *** so this issue doesn't affect you like it affects other people". I never meant to imply that knowing someone who is *** adds weight to my argument; it's irrelevant to my point, I was merely attempting to pre-empt a counterargument.
You're definitely going to need to supply some sort of example for me to judge whether this is happening to you or not. Personally I currently assume you are just blowing things out of proportion. Something along the lines of:
"Hey, she's cute I'd hit that"
"I wouldn't know, I'm ***"
"STOP PUSHING YOUR SEXUALITY ON ME!!!"
Honestly, I dislike obnoxiously in your face ANYTHING. Whenever you see anything involving *** rights on the news, there's always clips of people standing in front of public buildings holding up signs on either side of the issue. And regardless of whether their signs are in favor of or against it, I find both sides equally annoying. I just tend to find that since most news stations in my area are democratically/liberally biased, more air time is devoted towards "Support *** rights" signs with two men holding hands than "Ban *** marriage" signs with a man and a woman holding hands. And since I live in a blue state, I tend to see more people standing on street corners supporting it than opposing it.
I once drove past an anti-abortion group where the people were holding up signs that had pictures of dead infants on them. Now, I personally disagree with abortion except in cases of rape or health issues or other severe cases (i.e. it shouldn't be used as 'backup birth control') but I think that's just excessive and unnecessary. Regardless of my stance on ANY issue, I just dislike loud, obnoxious, sign waving, slogan chanting protesters. I support their right to have an opinion, I just feel affronted by the way they choose to express it.
One of the major stepping points in any civil rights movement is recognition. The *** population is unique in that it is an invisible one. Unlike ethnic minorities, it is almost impossible to tell just from looking at someone that they have a sexual orientation other than straight. For that reason it was and still somewhat is imperative to maintain a level of awareness.
When has your lifestyle of heterosexuality ever been attacked? When have you been afraid to tell someone you like them for fear of completely driving them out of your life? When was the last time you decided that it was best not to go out on a date with your boyfriend/girlfriend because you didn't want to deal with the sh*t that the community gives you?
I don't think people who are *** should be forced to "just be quiet about it", but there's a difference between "I'm proud to be ***" and waving signs in front of town hall and shouting obscenities at anyone who dares to disagree with you. It's one thing to maintain general community awareness, but IMO it should be done through less abrasive methods.
Are you honestly comparing *** people to those who are under the influence? I guess it is a step up from comparing us to child molesters.
A child molester would have been a poor example of the point I was making, because no child molester goes around loudly insisting that they have the right to do what they do. Furthermore, child molesters are predators who force their own desires on unknowing and/or unwilling victims, compared to people who are happy with who they are and are with people who share their interests, whether that be two men who are boyfriends or two men who are drinking. Drinking is legal, and being drunk is technically legal (so long as you aren't driving or anything). The point I was making was that I have no problem with what you do, so long as I don't need to be constantly reminded of it. My fiancee and two of her female friends were over here the other day, and they just happened to be drinking and making out. And I have nothing against either of that. However one of them, every 2-3 minutes, was constantly saying "I'm sorry I'm so drunk" "Man, I'm so drunk" "Oh God I love getting drunk". I had nothing against the fact that they were *** or the fact that they were drinking; I was getting ****** off that she wouldn't shut the **** up about how drunk she was. Granted this was literally two days ago so that's probably what lead to me goign on a rant about people who won't stop repeating the same thing over and over. I don't care what you do, I just don't need to know every two minutes that you do it.
argument and debate are how ideas are shared in our world. Show me a population that doesn't argue or bicker when it comes to conflicts of ideas.
So why aren't you being TOLERANT of people who want to have a debate about this issue? If you don't like it, take a back seat and ignore it like 90% of people do. Let those who are affected by it discuss it.
Saying you disagree with someone's opinion isn't the same as saying they don't have a right to one. Once again, disagreements are rampant in our world and it is impossible and illogical to keep them buried.
Because I think intolerance is a good thing. Like I said, there's a difference between being accepting of something and being tolerant of it. When people argue or bicker over conflicts of ideas, it's because each side is intolerant of the other side's views. I find it hypocritical that the LBGT movement preaches "tolerance through force" instead of "acceptance through understanding". I believe that the obnoxious protesting portion of the LBGT movement is almost certainly the minority of the people who actually support *** rights, but the loud voice of the people who preach tolerance violently seem to vastly overshadow the level headed supporters who preach understanding and empathy. If the obnoxiously annoyingly loud protesters on BOTH sides of the issue would both just shut the **** up and let the level headed members of both sides of the fence calmly discuss the issue, I honestly believe that the end result would be peace and acceptance on both sides.
The problem is that people don't get that feeling strongly about an opinion does not mean you need to be brash and abrasive when discussing it. You say that 90% of people should take the back seat and let the 10% argue it out loudly; why can't the 10% calm down and let the other 90% get a word in edgewise and probably actually ACCOMPLISH something?
I wholeheartedly agree that both sides have a right to their opinion, and that both sides have a right to a voice. But how often are any arguments ever solved by yelling at each other? If the zealots would calm down and treat each other with dignity (again, on BOTH sides) then maybe this issue would just be solved.
Again, I'm in favor of civil liberties and civil rights, but I don't think you need to be uncivil to get your point across. Case in point: Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, etc... there is a history of people who calmly, quietly, publicly voice their opinion AND ARE HEARD and they are remembered as the leaders of their own civil rights movements. Why do pro-*** supporters and anti-*** supporters NEED to have the "It's our way or no way" opinion in order for their opinion to be worth discussing, and the other 90% should not have a voice at all, because their voice isn't loud enough? That just seems wrong to me.
The fact that you have a more cynical view of people than I do is both surprising and disturbing. As indicated by your rather lengthy post here, it is clear that people will not just roll over on issues that are important to them. Are there some people out there that support *** rights just because they want us to shut up? Sure there are, and I welcome each and every one of their apathetic selves.
You shouldn't, though. You don't win an argument by making the other side stop arguing; you win an argument by making the other side agree. You don't need to force an opinion down someone's throat to stifle them and call that a win when you can calmly and rationally explain their position and get them to actually AGREE with you. Sure, you won't win everyone over, but you'll ACTUALLY win more people's agreement through calm, level headed discussion than you will by insisting that the people who stopped arguing are people who agree with your point. Especially if 90% of people aren't talking.
The LGBT community has more at stake than our opinion. Being passive aggressive and just leaving the debate because we're tired of it isn't going to get us anywhere. Once again, nothing would ever get done if people just got ***** and sat in the corner moping.
Between being passive agressive and sitting in the corner moving and holding massive protests. There's a middle ground. That's where the debate is won. If everyone just left the debate, nothing would get solved, and if everyone just gets louder and louder until everyone else has left the debate, then it's no longer a matter of "who is right", but just "who is left". By limiting the debate to only the vocal minority, both sides ignore the majority opinion. It's ignorant to assume that "You're either with me or against me" and that "If you stop arguing, it means you agree with me".
So I firmly support people's right to live the life they're comfortable with as long as it doesn't infringe on others. I firmly support people's right to believe in a certain thing as being right or wrong. And I support that people have the right to disagree with me.
No, you firmly support a person's requirement to never speak their mind ever and to keep their mouths shut even if they see something wrong.
No, I meant what I said. I support a person's right to live their own lives, and to have their own opinions. I don't feel and never said that someone who sees something wrong should shut up about it; I said, or was trying to say, that there's a middle ground between saying nothing and yelling. It's called talking. The problem is, the vocal minority on both sides is just yelling. And regardless of the point someone is trying to make, they won't get anyone to agree with them by yelling. The best they'll get is begrudging "tolerance" from the people who just got sick of yelling. And that's not a true victory.
Honestly, if you were ***, would you rather have people ACCEPT you for who you are, or would you rather have people dislike you, but just not say anything? The "We're here, we're *****, get used to it" side of the debate can only ever hope to accomplish the second. Why do people need to "get used to it" through force when they would probably end up "understanding and accepting it" through calm discussion?
yet you have gone on a huge rant judging *** people. you failed.
I think you're not getting the point. I'm not "judging *** people", I'm saying that people will never accomplish anything by screaming their point at each other. I'm saying that if both sides of the issue would calm down and discuss things rationally, the issue would have already been resolved.
And I had the same quote issue where I had to remove all my quotes to make the quote limit not get broken.
EDIT: Minor typo Edited, May 25th 2010 7:21pm by Mikhalia