Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Marriage Equality in Eorzea?Follow

#102 May 16 2010 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
digitalcraft, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Fake *** online marriage ruins the sanctity of fake online marriage!!!! >.<
Is it safe to infer that you are opposed to fake *** online couples to adopt fake online children?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#103 May 25 2010 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
*****
11,539 posts
The interesting/amusing thing is... whenever you have a thread about "same *** marriage in a game", it ALWAYS ends up being a discussion about same *** marriage IRL.

And, much like the RL version of it, there are three camps: People for it, people against it, and people who don't care. And 99.999% of the people in each group are almost certainly not going to change their mind, no matter how many points (valid or not) you throw at them.

The threads never actually accomplish anything regarding marriage in games being a certain way because maybe half a dozen posts are actually well written ideas that are on point. The rest of the thread is just people arguing over homosexuality/marriage/morality/equality IRL.

(This is the game marriage part)

Personally, I leave my RPing to D&D and never really bring it to MMORPGs but I get the thought that maybe two people (regardless of gender) may want their two characters (regardless of gender) to get married. A RL man and his male character to a RL female and her female character, two RL men and their male and female character, a RL man and his female character to a RL woman and her male character, a RL man and woman with their two female characters... Whatever.

The problem is, that for every one couple that is genuinely RPing a "character marriage", there are 9 others who are only using in game *** marriage as support for a political agenda.

(This is the part where my post gets into the RL marriage part)

Now, I am fine with the idea of same *** marriage/unions/whatever IRL. I'm fine with homosexuals/bisexuals; ****, my own fiancee is bisexual, and one of her friends happens to be ***. The thing I don't like is the "We're here, we're *****, get used to it" crowd. People have the right to be whoever or whatever they want to be, so long as it's not affecting other people. My problem is, when someone starts pushing their sexuality/political views in my face, I become offended. I'm not offended that you're ***; I'm offended that you won't shut the **** up about it. If being *** is indeed just as natural as being straight, then why the need to advertise and promote it? You don't see me going around chanting "I'm straight! It's great! Get used to it!" Why? Because it's dumb. Yes, I have the right to defend my own lifestyle when attacked, but it's obnoxious to instigate arguments by emphatically stating it to everyone.

I have nothing against people who drink or do drugs, but I can not STAND the "I'm so drunk right now"/"I'm so high right now" crowd either. Not because I have anything against drinking, but because for the love of @#%^ they won't shut up about it.

You're welcome to whatever your sexual preference/religion preference/drinking-drugs preference/abortion preference/gun preference you want to have. And you're welcome to your opinion on it just like I am, even if you disagree with me. But when you start going around flaunting whatever your opinion is, you're just challenging everyone around you to either "accept it or I'm going to argue with you". By preaching that EVERYONE else NEEDS to "be tolerant or else", you end up being intolerant of anyone else around you. And doesn't the word "tolerant" in itself imply that you should "Deal with it, even if you don't like it"? It seems like people who subscribe to the "be tolerant or else" crowd would probably accomplish MORE in the way of actually getting people to be ACCEPTING of them by saying "I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree" then by insisting that no one else but them has any right to have an opinion (unless your opinion is the same as theirs). I understand and expect that there are people on both ends of the table who will still never change their mind, but the bulk of the people you "win over" from the middle of the road crowd with an ultimatum are people who end up resenting you underneath the surface; they're not agreeing because they agree, they're ceasing vocal disagreement because they just want you to shut up.

My fiancee is rather the same way; when she argues with someone who has a strong opinion (such as myself or her mother), she doesn't stop arguing because she won the argument or is pleased with where it ended; she stops arguing because she doesn't want to hear the other person talk anymore. She still disagrees, she just says "whatever, fine, you're right" and walks away, ****** off. That's what "Tolerance at all costs" gets you.

Look at the crusades. "Accept our religion or die"; you see how well that went over. When faced with an ultimatum, you don't actually "convert" anyone, you just get people who begrudgingly say they agree with you when they really don't.

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.

All I'm saying is, the only people I don't like are the people who push their agenda down your throat. I'm Christian, but I can't stand Bible thumpers. Not because I disagree with their viewpoint, but because I disagree with the obnoxious way they're expressing it. Same as people who are ***; I don't disagree with their sexual preferences; I just disagree with having them shoved in my face abrasively.

I also feel the need to add on here that "being against same *** marriage" and "being religious" are not always coupled. I've known atheists/agnostics who are against "nontraditional marriage" and I personally am semi-religious and am in favor. I do agree to the theory that you shouldn't be against something for no other reason than because a book tells you it's bad. Think for yourself, formulate your own opinions. And for what it's worth from the Bible end, the Bible also says that you shouldn't wear pearls, and that if a man has *** with a woman who is unmarried, he must pay 20 pieces of silver to her father and marry her immediately. I'm not disrespecting the Bible as a whole, but even as a Christian, you can't take every word of it literally without thinking it through and understanding that while much of it can be looked at as valid and relevant, other parts can be looked at as typical of those times, but not relevant to today's society, and viewed as a portion of history. To say that you must accept something because a book said it was okay; my high school history textbooks say slavery was legal. Times change, people change. Books don't change.

I do agree with the quoted verses from Romans and Matthew however; what you do and believe in your life is between you and God and no one else, and let God be the judge of how your neighbor has lead their life after it is over, rather than yourself now. I, as a Christian, believe that the biggest problem with my religion is some of the people who follow it. I can't say that some conservative Muslims wouldn't understand that feeling. Goes back to that "Believe it and live it, but you don't need to violently preach it" thing. I agree wholeheartedly that far too many Christians do not adhere to what they claim to believe and use their religion as a pillar of intolerance, which I personally feel just disrespects the religion. I am saddened that my religion as a whole is looked poorly upon by people as a result of the loud, obnoxious people who use it as a political agenda and ignore the core tenets underlying it. I can't help but ask myself, are there not conservative homosexuals who feel offended by the abrasive vocal minority? Surely there must be; but I could be wrong.

(Poor attempt to get back to the game)

So yes, I'd be generally in favor of anyone marrying anyone in game if I didn't think it would just end up being a tool used by the obnoxiously loud "accept it or else" types. But, as many others have said, I think it's easier just to leave "officially sanctioned marriage" out of the game altogether, and let "in game marriages" be private ceremonies held by individual players.

And for what it's worth; I, a male, had my female character have a private "marriage" ceremony with a female who also had a female character. Turnout was about 40-50 people. Ceremony was very nice. It was an atypical moment of RPing in FFXI for me. Did I care that SE wouldn't let two female Elvaan get "married"? No, not really, because we still accomplished what we wanted to: two signed crafted rings and some nice "wedding vows", followed by a honeymoon on Purongogo (sp) Isle.

(Brief departure from in-game point again before end of post)

So yes, we didn't let SE tell us what we could or couldn't do; we did it ourselves anyway. I think that the big insistence from people that (company) let you get married in (game) comes from the inner juvenile feeling that we keep with us through our adult lives of "You can't tell me what to do!" wherein being told we can't do something, no matter how insignificant, makes people become militant in their insistence that they be able to do it. A 1x1' square of grass will be ignored, but once you put a "Keep off grass" sign on it, you'll have everyone stepping on it and posting pictures of themselves doing it on Facebook. I think humanity as a whole (more America than the rest of the world, honestly) has this huge objection to any sort of "rules" that anything they're asked/told NOT to do immediately becomes something they NEED to do. And so it is with same *** marriage, or drugs, or anything else "illegal"; the primary reason for people feeling so strongly about it is rooted in the fact that they can't. I admittedly don't have the statistical data to back up my claim, but I'd be almost positive that more drinking occurred DURING prohibition than immediately before it. Garden of Eden/Tree of Life example all over again, even if you don't take the story from the Bible at its literal meaning, the moral of the story is still relevant: No matter how much someone has, they will always want the only thing they don't have. And if that means two Mithras can't get married in Vana'diel, then that's what people will want.

Edited, May 25th 2010 4:10pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#104 May 25 2010 at 2:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
Quote:
I'm offended that you won't shut the **** up about it.


Seriously take some of your own medicine. I hear more people say "Gays say this and that." then *** people actually saying the stuff themselves.
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#105 May 25 2010 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
RedGalka wrote:
Quote:
I'm offended that you won't shut the **** up about it.


Seriously take some of your own medicine. I hear more people say "Gays say this and that." then *** people actually saying the stuff themselves.


Probably because you strike me as the type to not factor in the amount of people agreeing with you; you only factor in the amount of people who disagree.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#106 May 25 2010 at 3:51 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
The interesting/amusing thing is... whenever you have a thread about "same *** marriage in a game", it ALWAYS ends up being a discussion about same *** marriage IRL.

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?

Quote:
And, much like the RL version of it, there are three camps: People for it, people against it, and people who don't care. And 99.999% of the people in each group are almost certainly not going to change their mind, no matter how many points (valid or not) you throw at them.

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.

Quote:
The threads never actually accomplish anything regarding marriage in games being a certain way because maybe half a dozen posts are actually well written ideas that are on point. The rest of the thread is just people arguing over homosexuality/marriage/morality/equality IRL.

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.


Quote:
The problem is, that for every one couple that is genuinely RPing a "character marriage", there are 9 others who are only using in game *** marriage as support for a political agenda.

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.

Quote:
Now, I am fine with the idea of same *** marriage/unions/whatever IRL. I'm fine with homosexuals/bisexuals; ****, my own fiancee is bisexual, and one of her friends happens to be ***.

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.

Quote:
The thing I don't like is the "We're here, we're *****, get used to it" crowd. People have the right to be whoever or whatever they want to be, so long as it's not affecting other people. My problem is, when someone starts pushing their sexuality/political views in my face, I become offended. I'm not offended that you're ***; I'm offended that you won't shut the **** up about it.

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!!!"

Quote:
If being *** is indeed just as natural as being straight, then why the need to advertise and promote 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.
Quote:

You don't see me going around chanting "I'm straight! It's great! Get used to it!" Why? Because it's dumb. Yes, I have the right to defend my own lifestyle when attacked, but it's obnoxious to instigate arguments by emphatically stating it to everyone.

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?

Quote:
I have nothing against people who drink or do drugs, but I can not STAND the "I'm so drunk right now"/"I'm so high right now" crowd either. Not because I have anything against drinking, but because for the love of @#%^ they won't shut up about it.

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.

Quote:
You're welcome to whatever your sexual preference/religion preference/drinking-drugs preference/abortion preference/gun preference you want to have. And you're welcome to your opinion on it just like I am, even if you disagree with me. But when you start going around flaunting whatever your opinion is, you're just challenging everyone around you to either "accept it or I'm going to argue with you".

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.

Quote:
By preaching that EVERYONE else NEEDS to "be tolerant or else", you end up being intolerant of anyone else around you. And doesn't the word "tolerant" in itself imply that you should "Deal with it, even if you don't like it"?

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.

Quote:
It seems like people who subscribe to the "be tolerant or else" crowd would probably accomplish MORE in the way of actually getting people to be ACCEPTING of them by saying "I respect your right to your opinion, but I disagree" then by insisting that no one else but them has any right to have an opinion (unless your opinion is the same as theirs).

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.
Quote:

I understand and expect that there are people on both ends of the table who will still never change their mind, but the bulk of the people you "win over" from the middle of the road crowd with an ultimatum are people who end up resenting you underneath the surface; they're not agreeing because they agree, they're ceasing vocal disagreement because they just want you to shut up.

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.

My fiancee is rather the same way; when she argues with someone who has a strong opinion (such as myself or her mother), she doesn't stop arguing because she won the argument or is pleased with where it ended; she stops arguing because she doesn't want to hear the other person talk anymore. She still disagrees, she just says "whatever, fine, you're right" and walks away, ****** off. That's what "Tolerance at all costs" gets you.

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.

Look at the crusades. "Accept our religion or die"; you see how well that went over. When faced with an ultimatum, you don't actually "convert" anyone, you just get people who begrudgingly say they agree with you when they really don't.

REALLY??? You're going to compare a civil rights movement to genocidal hostility? Aren't you just adorable.

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.

All I'm saying is, the only people I don't like are the people who push their agenda down your throat. I'm Christian, but I can't stand Bible thumpers. Not because I disagree with their viewpoint, but because I disagree with the obnoxious way they're expressing it. Same as people who are ***; I don't disagree with their sexual preferences; I just disagree with having them shoved in my face abrasively.


Once again, you are going to have to give some anecdotal evidence of this *** agenda being forced on you.


I do agree with the quoted verses from Romans and Matthew however; what you do and believe in your life is between you and God and no one else, and let God be the judge of how your neighbor has lead their life after it is over, rather than yourself now.

yet you have gone on a huge rant judging *** people. you failed.


edited because quotes became too numerous for proper function






Edited, May 25th 2010 4:54pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#107 May 25 2010 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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)

Bardalicious wrote:

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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Bardalicious wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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".

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#108 May 25 2010 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
3,141 posts
Zrysaadi wrote:
I don't know how to post this without risking starting a "thing" about marriage equality. I just really want to put my 2c in for marriage ceremonies in FFXIV (assuming they have them).

I'm a ******* IRL and one thing that burned me a little was that same-gender marriage was not possible in FFXI (at least not if you wanted an official marriage). I hope if they do have official marriages in FFXIV that they are willing to consider allowing same-gender marriages as well.

It won't stop me from enjoying the game if they don't but if any of you are on alpha/beta and agree with me then I hope you will send the suggestion in as feedback.


This is a Japanese company - marrying someone of the same *** is considered taboo. Marriage to human/animal hybrids and viewing child pornography on the other hand is considered perfectly ok.
____________________________
.
#109 May 25 2010 at 9:18 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
jtftaru wrote:
Zrysaadi wrote:
I don't know how to post this without risking starting a "thing" about marriage equality. I just really want to put my 2c in for marriage ceremonies in FFXIV (assuming they have them).

I'm a ******* IRL and one thing that burned me a little was that same-gender marriage was not possible in FFXI (at least not if you wanted an official marriage). I hope if they do have official marriages in FFXIV that they are willing to consider allowing same-gender marriages as well.

It won't stop me from enjoying the game if they don't but if any of you are on alpha/beta and agree with me then I hope you will send the suggestion in as feedback.


This is a Japanese company - marrying someone of the same *** is considered taboo. Marriage to human/animal hybrids Anime pillows and viewing child pornography on the other hand is considered perfectly ok.


FTFY
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#110 May 25 2010 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good
**
459 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
If being *** is indeed just as natural as being straight, then why the need to advertise and promote it?


... because gays are still not equal citizens? just a thought.
____________________________
BANNED
#112 May 27 2010 at 4:16 PM Rating: Good
Rush1984 wrote:
I really hope they add rp servers and dont mix rp players with the normal player base.
I have nothing against rp players personally though i do find it abit odd, but people can play there games how ever they desire. but i know from past experience in games that the two kinds of players just dont mix well together.
An example would be a grp of RP players are having a wedding and then a grp of normal players ruin it for them , believe me it would happen, I think Rp players would be much happier playing on there own servers


From what I've seen from the XI community, there's not a huge RP crowd. I kinda don't see SE going with different types of servers.

I tried getting into RPing in UO years and years ago, but it wasn't my thing. I wouldn't have any problem playing alongside them however.
#113 May 28 2010 at 10:05 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Rush1984 wrote:
I really hope they add rp servers and dont mix rp players with the normal player base.
I have nothing against rp players personally though i do find it abit odd, but people can play there games how ever they desire. but i know from past experience in games that the two kinds of players just dont mix well together.
An example would be a grp of RP players are having a wedding and then a grp of normal players ruin it for them , believe me it would happen, I think Rp players would be much happier playing on there own servers


From what I've seen from the XI community, there's not a huge RP crowd. I kinda don't see SE going with different types of servers.

I tried getting into RPing in UO years and years ago, but it wasn't my thing. I wouldn't have any problem playing alongside them however.


Most "role players" in FFXI think that "role playing" means "/p I HARNESS THE POWER OF THE GODS!" and "/p FEEL THE HEAT OF A THOUSAND HELLS!" in Thunder/Fire macros.

Yes, there are those who actually do role play... but that number is such a tiny fraction that I think 1-2 RP servers at most would still be too empty if they were only filled with ACTUAL RPers.

It's kinda unfair that good RPers get laughed at by non RPers for choosing to play the game differently, so if there was enough interest for it, I could see wanting their own server to be reasonable. Unfortunately for them, the demand isn't high enough or strong enough.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#114 May 28 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Well, to be fair we are only using the XI subscription numbers to go by and I don't think that's necessarily going to be the best measure in XIV. What I have noticed from the latest release of information on the Beta testing is that SE seems to have listened to the feedback from the testers and I didn't expect them to. Testers said battles were slow - SE flat out said they were changing nearly the entire system for the beta. The playerbase said Gil was too hard to make, they are doing something or another about that as well. I do find it interesting that this was historically a number one complaint in XI. It makes me wonder what they have against players earning currency from the environment.

If SE continues with this trend of listening to what players actually want and like, then we might see a larger playerbase this time around. XI has a smaller base of users only because a lot of things in it still suck, and though many things were changed to make it more accessible it's still "too little, too late". XI is the only game I know that seemed to want to punish people for playing it.

I see XIV as a fresh start for SE and for the rest of us as well. Hopefully it will pique the interest of folks who wouldn't play XI because of the bad reputation it has.
1 2 3 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)