Honestly, I don't even know why I'm a Democrat anymore. I mean I look at this whole "Bipartisan politics" more like a maffia taking turns running our country, and making some scratch for friends and fellow party memebers. Maybe if America should have 4 or 5 parties and share the power, stuff actually might get done. It just seems to me that after years of Democrats vs. Republicans seems very shallow to me these days... It seems like they are just pretending to create divisive issues to keep ppl distracted so that they can share power back and forth,... election after election... and yet appear as they both parties are "fighting the good fight" so to speak... Maybe I've grown cynical in my old age, but I think it's a scam both parties perpetuate a monopoly of power by sharing the office and senate. It all just seems disegenuous. And I would probably join an Idenpendant party but, most are just a mix of conservative democrats and liberal republicans... seems like there's no true 3rd Party to choose from. Sorry I know I got a bit off topic with my diatribe.
Hey, it may not mean much, but I agree with you 100%. I voted Democrat because the Repulicans had it for 8 years and so it was, in my view, time to give the other side a shot. Some Repubs say W wasn't a fiscal conservative. Fine, I won't argue. I do have issue with the rest of you standing by him when he wasn't so fiscally conservative, though, lol.
So yeah, I'd love nothing more than to see a 3rd and 4th party rise to prominence here. I'd also like to see the Senate term limit dropped from 6 years to 4 or 3.
I have to say that what you say scares me.
You voted for the other side to basically give them a shot? Plain and simple, thats dumb thinking or being brainwashed.
I vote for whoever I feel will best support myself and my family over the long haul. Also who has the values I have. I dont vote party line for the sake of seeing what they can do...
Bush was not a fiscal conservative, but I stand by him as he made many of the right choices. But he did bleed money out. The current administration is making a joke of Bush's spending though.
Also, to be on topic, The game does promote homesexual activity if it provides a reward to cheat and engage in such activity (acheivments).
Acheivments are often though not always out of game and have no impact on play, especially romance player acheivmments.
That said the IN GAME rewards for contract killing actually benifits your character with money and equipment. In that senes the game promotes contract killing even more so than homosexual behavior.
(off topic and wrong forum)
Acheivements are odd from an olld gamer perspective and 2/3rds useless.
there 3 types of acheivments
1 Useless achievememt "you completed X level.
2 Bragging acheivement "explored did X content"
3 Useful acheviment "you did X and now gain Y bonus going forward"
Asheron's Call, Champions Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, EverQuest, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft.Waiting for SWTOR
Homosexuality, multiple-partner sex, bestiality, and adultery are all forms of sexual deviance that are morally wrong in almost every culture. Protesting against blatant sexual deviance is not homophobia. However protesting against sexual deviance in a game where the object is to run around killing people is a bit absurd.
First of all to claim deviance you have to accept that there is a norm that is being deviated from. And you just can't do that. People all over the world throughout all times have done different things to get off. The idea that a sexual behavior is deviant is false.
Those things are not morally wrong in every culture. I understand that since you think those things are deviant, you also think that 'right-thinking' people all over the world agree with you, but its just not the case.
Now lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a sexual norm, and the things you listed do indeed deviate from that norm. That still doesn't mean those things are wrong, or morally wrong. Different doesn't mean wrong. Also you can't show any harm, so protesting against gay people IS homophobia.
The permissiveness of the US secular culture does not extend to the rest of the world. These acts ARE morally wrong in almost every culture. In some cultures, it even goes so far as to be punished by the death penalty for those who get caught in such situations. If you disagree, go to Saudi Arabia and practice homosexuality publicly.
Despite your wishing otherwise, morally wrong is morally wrong. Those with moral standards have the right to protest against that which they find immoral. Protesting against public display of sexual deviance is not homophobia, it's an attempt to bring moral values to their community and dissuade those practicing deviant behavior from committing immoral acts. The harm is to both those witnessing the acts and those committing them. If you were to stop someone who was about to cut off their hand, would you be handectomyphobic? No, you'd be expressing concern for that person's well-being.
That's not even remotely true.
Romans, Greeks and all sorts of other cultures throughout history were completely OK with homosexuality. Historically speaking, in Western culture at least, this moral outcry is a relatively (IE: in the hundreds of years) new development.
Sure, there are cultures where you cannot openly be gay, but there are also cultures where you cannot eat certain animals on certain days of the week. Every culture has its quirks.
But to paint that with such a complete brush is absolutely absurd from a historical point of view.
The fact is, modern science should tell people thinking homosexuality is a choice or immoral is ridiculous. Biologically speaking, 10% of ducks are gay. Get over it.
Your entire pro-deviance argument is that humans are incapable of thinking beyond their sexual organs, so we should just have sex with anything that moves, regardless of morality, social consequences, marital consequences, or medical consequences. That's absurd. If that's really how you feel, all I can say is maybe you should grow up and stop thinking with what's in your pants. "If it feels good, do it" will hurt you and anyone close to you. Look how well this attitude is going over for Tiger Woods and his family. Use Tiger's experience as an example that this lifestyle is wrong and change your attitude while you can.
Historically, you are wrong. Roman and Greek culture didn't start out so open. In fact, historians have argued that the excessive lack of morality towards the end of those ancient cultures were what tipped the balance and caused those cultures to fail.
No, actually Dana is right. Their cultures were indeed very open about it. I've spent the last year and a half to two years (as a European History major) talking about the history and culture of that part of the world, as well as others. Never once did homosexual relations come up as a reason for their downfall. It was, oh, I don't know, the invading armies from other cultures, some of which practiced homosexuality as well, that overran them, in short.
Man, it's so wild to experience hate disguised in so many ways.
Exactly, coincidentally, I was also a European History major.
There are writers who claim moral decay led to the decay of both civilizations, the other guy is right in that, but he leaves out that they're mostly discredited by serious historians as people with a specific agenda to drive.
Take Rome, they actually reigned it in over the last few hundred years if anything. The really crazy stuff was in the pre-Imperial days, or the early Imperial days.
I don't think anyone is promoting adultery (heck, even Dragon Age punishes you for sleeping around) or bestiality, but you lumping homosexuality in with those is downright offensive.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Would all the prudes just get over themselves, a good adventure story is borning without getting the girl or the guy.
I am lesbian I doubt many of the straight laced prudes buy the game or play it. in a phrase...screw them.
I like being able to have my female have a romance with MY choice of characters.
Bioware made one of the best games there is it sells on the adventure, the romance and the storyline. All this bullshit about the romance not being straight or its dirty is just our repressed nay sayers and tot hem I say get off the computer and go get laid you might not be such a prude or tight ass anymore.
ok i have a Dwarf Character and i wanna sleep with Shale - The Golem - is that also bad??
World start looking for "news" in the most stupid places he can find whean he does not have with something else...
Hell i heard some months ago that Catholick church throing words for ........Donald Duck for hes NOT wearing pants and hes a pervet...... COMOOOOONN!!!!! WHAT ELSE!!!
ok i have a Dwarf Character and i wanna sleep with Shale - The Golem - is that also bad??
World start looking for "news" in the most stupid places he can find whean he does not have with something else...
Hell i heard some months ago that Catholick church throing words for ........Donald Duck for hes NOT wearing pants and hes a pervet...... COMOOOOONN!!!!! WHAT ELSE!!!
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ok i have a Dwarf Character and i wanna sleep with Shale - The Golem - is that also bad??
World start looking for "news" in the most stupid places he can find whean he does not have with something else...
Hell i heard some months ago that Catholick church throing words for ........Donald Duck for hes NOT wearing pants and hes a pervet...... COMOOOOONN!!!!! WHAT ELSE!!!
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ROFL!!! now that i dint think of it ahahhahahaha!!!!
Would all the prudes just get over themselves, a good adventure story is borning without getting the girl or the guy.
I am lesbian I doubt many of the straight laced prudes buy the game or play it. in a phrase...screw them.
I like being able to have my female have a romance with MY choice of characters.
Bioware made one of the best games there is it sells on the adventure, the romance and the storyline. All this bullshit about the romance not being straight or its dirty is just our repressed nay sayers and tot hem I say get off the computer and go get laid you might not be such a prude or tight ass anymore.
I wish they would get over it, BUT it is not likely as prudes/likely conservatives, like to bash and condemn what they find immoral it is a hobby for some, and a calling for others.
I am socially liberal and I love to bash religion, for its closed mindedness. I just have the decency to keep my bashing to my own blogs for the most part and my discussions with people open minded enough to listen to me berate their beliefs. I try not to bash people who aren't up for it and I try to keep my bashing in the right forums.
I argue more story options equals better story even if those options arent to your liking, and in fact might give you the opportunity to deviate from what you would normally do. Oh wait what is that roleplay OMG its a role playing game.
I dont know im babbling now been reading this thread to long.
Asheron's Call, Champions Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, EverQuest, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft.Waiting for SWTOR
Would all the prudes just get over themselves, a good adventure story is borning without getting the girl or the guy.
I am lesbian I doubt many of the straight laced prudes buy the game or play it. in a phrase...screw them.
I like being able to have my female have a romance with MY choice of characters.
Bioware made one of the best games there is it sells on the adventure, the romance and the storyline. All this bullshit about the romance not being straight or its dirty is just our repressed nay sayers and tot hem I say get off the computer and go get laid you might not be such a prude or tight ass anymore.
I wish they would get over it, BUT it is not likely as prudes/likely conservatives, like to bash and condemn what they find immoral it is a hobby for some, and a calling for others.
I am socially liberal and I love to bash religion, for its closed mindedness. I just have the decency to keep my bashing to my own blogs for the most part and my discussions with people open minded enough to listen to me berate their beliefs. I try not to bash people who aren't up for it and I try to keep my bashing in the right forums.
I argue more story options equals better story even if those options arent to your liking, and in fact might give you the opportunity to deviate from what you would normally do. Oh wait what is that roleplay OMG its a role playing game.
I dont know im babbling now been reading this thread to long.
religion sucks and you dont' have to have any sex in the game if you don't want to
ok i have a Dwarf Character and i wanna sleep with Shale - The Golem - is that also bad??
World start looking for "news" in the most stupid places he can find whean he does not have with something else...
Hell i heard some months ago that Catholick church throing words for ........Donald Duck for hes NOT wearing pants and hes a pervet...... COMOOOOONN!!!!! WHAT ELSE!!!
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ROFL!!! now that i dint think of it ahahhahahaha!!!!
or what about sleeping with morrigan after she shape shifted XD
More right wing fanatics trying to impose their morals on everyone else. What's new?
I couldn't care less what a mature rated game contains. Its the parent's responsibility to know what the kiddies are whatching.
This attitude on the part of World News Daily reflects how little veting is done. They get a juicy topic and run with it. Check it out first??? Naaa, this puppy is hot!
Assumptions are made based on pre-concieved notions about what is going on....much like the above quote!!!!!
World News isn't a 'radical right wing publication. It is a liberal...and I use the term loosely :P.
Quote fron World News Daily info on a search:
A daily round-up of the latest international news from msnbc.com and its partners, including NBC News, Newsweek and the Washington Post. With features and analysis by NBC reporters ...
These are hardly right wing pubs. It would seem Khalathwyr has the same problem with judging something based on his/her own blind bias
This is just another "news story" to keep people from thinking about all the good things that socialism has brought to the world.
Yeah, cause you're an authority on the socialism.
"Duck and cover"
Sorry pops, the 1950s are gone. Socialism, just like the beloved Free Market Capitalism we have, are all viable and all dependent on the power mongers running them. You have a corrupt elite running them, and they all are doomed to fail, which I think history has proven now.
To blame the system shows you know nothing about the system. It's the people implementing them that caused them to fail.
yeah im stuck in the past i guess, i see how well socialism has worked and cant wait for Obama's corruption to make it fail here.
Yet you're in complete denial of free market capitalism, with a joke for regulation, has failed equally. Nope, don't want to talk about that. Ignore the man behind the screen, lol!
At least you're honest about it. More than I can say for some of the other yokels in here.
I dont know how the U.S. became the richest country in the world without embracing socialism. Maybe you can explain to me how it is that western europe is doing so well and yet demanding money for the U.N. and the farce known as global warming?
Seems like the difference between socialism and capitalism seems marginal at best. Seems mostly different on paper, but when you take a look at america at closer view, it's actually quite a bit socialisitic in many aspects. Sorry just had to add my 2cents into both of you're interesting debate.
I'm actually not afraid of more socialism in our country, I mean if America needs it, then we should adapt... One thing you can say about Americans that seems historically true, is that we are good at changing, adapting and evolving as a country... generally speaking ofc.
I agree it takes a balance of the two. My problem with the current administration is too much power. I do not like either party to have as much power as the liberals have at this time. The presidency and both houses is too much power to wield,be it a left or right wing administration.
He who is with out sin must get stoned.
That is not a newspaper, it's a supermarket tabloid that looks for Elvis.
Liberals think the Social Sciences have the answers so they should control out lives. Conservatives think God has given them the answers so they should have control our lives. I say "Get the Hell out of out lives, let us screw it up ourselves.
Exactly, coincidentally, I was also a European History major. There are writers who claim moral decay led to the decay of both civilizations, the other guy is right in that, but he leaves out that they're mostly discredited by serious historians as people with a specific agenda to drive. Take Rome, they actually reigned it in over the last few hundred years if anything. The really crazy stuff was in the pre-Imperial days, or the early Imperial days. I don't think anyone is promoting adultery (heck, even Dragon Age punishes you for sleeping around) or bestiality, but you lumping homosexuality in with those is downright offensive.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Right, but I suspect that's not the school of thought he was on about. There is a group of historians, and a group from way back, that point to morality as the reason the empire fell. Specifically personal morality.
There is no single reason, but yes, the - for lack of a better word - laziness of the actual Romans has also been tossed out as a huge reason. And somewhat confusingly, this theory is often called "moral decay," but not in the sense we were arguing. They always had slavery, but in later years it became just about the only thing they used and the things that made their civilization great (army and thus engineering) suffered greatly.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
ok i have a Dwarf Character and i wanna sleep with Shale - The Golem - is that also bad??
World start looking for "news" in the most stupid places he can find whean he does not have with something else...
Hell i heard some months ago that Catholick church throing words for ........Donald Duck for hes NOT wearing pants and hes a pervet...... COMOOOOONN!!!!! WHAT ELSE!!!
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ROFL!!! now that i dint think of it ahahhahahaha!!!!
or what about sleeping with morrigan after she shape shifted XD
As long as it is not the spider.....I'm terrified of spiders lol...though how hard could be to sleep with the swarm of bees.
Exactly, coincidentally, I was also a European History major. There are writers who claim moral decay led to the decay of both civilizations, the other guy is right in that, but he leaves out that they're mostly discredited by serious historians as people with a specific agenda to drive. Take Rome, they actually reigned it in over the last few hundred years if anything. The really crazy stuff was in the pre-Imperial days, or the early Imperial days. I don't think anyone is promoting adultery (heck, even Dragon Age punishes you for sleeping around) or bestiality, but you lumping homosexuality in with those is downright offensive.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Right, but I suspect that's not the school of thought he was on about. There is a group of historians, and a group from way back, that point to morality as the reason the empire fell. Specifically personal morality.
There is no single reason, but yes, the - for lack of a better word - laziness of the actual Romans has also been tossed out as a huge reason. And somewhat confusingly, this theory is often called "moral decay," but not in the sense we were arguing. They always had slavery, but in later years it became just about the only thing they used and the things that made their civilization great (army and thus engineering) suffered greatly.
Try reading Gibbon's two volume "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" you both might learn something.
2) On global warming (hunter here too btw). For what it's worth, your anecdotal evidence would actualy weaken the claim for man-made global warming that is currently in vogue these days rather then strengthen it. Although it's called "global warming"... that does not mean that all parts of the globe are expected to evince warming trends. All the models of the current theory that I've heard about predict that Eastern North America (presumably where your birds are migrating from) should actualy be growing COLDER due to "global warming". This is supposed to be due to the weakening of the Gulf Stream current which makes our climate up here significantly milder then would otherwise be the case for this latitude. The idea that geese were migrating later in the year because the climate up North was getting warmer would run COUNTER to that claim. Personaly, I wouldn't put much stock in isolated anecdotes one way or the other. The climate is a pretty complicated thing....and individual isolated effects would be pretty hard to attribute to any one given cause unless you had a very thorough understanding of everything that factored into them. Maybe you do in that particular case....but I know I certainly don't.
I've been around. Traveled and worked with people in Africa, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Inner Mongolia, China, Australia and I've lived in both Europe and the USA. I'm not exactly young anymore. I'm a scientist, mostly concerned with matters of zoonotic disease and public health.
The United States certainly has its good points. In the case of global warming though, the degree of greed and consumerism, and the assurance in Americans that they *deserve* to live as they do, will be a key driver behind why little is done to slow warming, let alone reverse the damage. I understand they are not the only people that such criticism can be leveled. Australians are another, and I am Australian. They are though, along with China, the country that needs to be the most convinced. Instead, skepticism (of the kind above) that warming is taking place or that mankind is responsible for it, is incredibly common in the US at levels nowhere else in the world.
Climate change is happening right now with this decade to be the warmest on record. It is not a matter of it being in vogue to believe this, citizens of the USA simply have a lot of catching up to do because of the countries recent political history. Scientists are an intrinsically cautious group of people, and even more so when advising government on taking action. Had the USA had a similar mindset to the Europeans perhaps something might have been done. It is far too late now and it is very much a matter of how bad will the consequences be and whether we can mitigate them. History will judge us harshly and future generations will shake their heads in shame.
(Sorry to be so off topic but this sort of thing is worth saying.)
This is similar to what happened when Mortal Kombat first came out. Man I remember how excited I was to play a game that splurted blood whenever someone got hit and also let you rip people's heads off and burn them alive...
2) On global warming (hunter here too btw). For what it's worth, your anecdotal evidence would actualy weaken the claim for man-made global warming that is currently in vogue these days rather then strengthen it. Although it's called "global warming"... that does not mean that all parts of the globe are expected to evince warming trends. All the models of the current theory that I've heard about predict that Eastern North America (presumably where your birds are migrating from) should actualy be growing COLDER due to "global warming". This is supposed to be due to the weakening of the Gulf Stream current which makes our climate up here significantly milder then would otherwise be the case for this latitude. The idea that geese were migrating later in the year because the climate up North was getting warmer would run COUNTER to that claim. Personaly, I wouldn't put much stock in isolated anecdotes one way or the other. The climate is a pretty complicated thing....and individual isolated effects would be pretty hard to attribute to any one given cause unless you had a very thorough understanding of everything that factored into them. Maybe you do in that particular case....but I know I certainly don't.
I've been around. Traveled and worked with people in Africa, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Inner Mongolia, China, Australia and I've lived in both Europe and the USA. I'm not exactly young anymore. I'm a scientist, mostly concerned with matters of zoonotic disease and public health.
The United States certainly has its good points. In the case of global warming though, the degree of greed and consumerism, and the assurance in Americans that they *deserve* to live as they do, will be a key driver behind why little is done to slow warming, let alone reverse the damage. I understand they are not the only people that such criticism can be leveled. Australians are another, and I am Australian. They are though, along with China, the country that needs to be the most convinced. Instead, skepticism (of the kind above) that warming is taking place or that mankind is responsible for it, is incredibly common in the US at levels nowhere else in the world.
Climate change is happening right now with this decade to be the warmest on record. It is not a matter of it being in vogue to believe this, citizens of the USA simply have a lot of catching up to do because of the countries recent political history. Scientists are an intrinsically cautious group of people, and even more so when advising government on taking action. Had the USA had a similar mindset to the Europeans perhaps something might have been done. It is far too late now and it is very much a matter of how bad will the consequences be and whether we can mitigate them. History will judge us harshly and future generations will shake their heads in shame.
(Sorry to be so off topic but this sort of thing is worth saying.)
As P.J. O’Rourke quoted in his book “All The Trouble In The World”, one noted environmentalist said back in the Eighties;
“We have to strike a balance between offering up scary scenarios- and actually telling the truth.”
The fellow who said that was none other than then U.s. Senator Al Gore. An “inconvenient truth” if there ever was one.
"It is in your nature to do one thing correctly; Before me, you rightfully tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe." ~Francis Dolarhyde
I honestly do not see why an mature adult would be offended by a Sex scene which lasts like 30 seconds if not less. I mean seriously for crying out loud. We watch Live TV with more sexual cotnent than in a video game. I dont know about anyone else But I have played Dragonage orgins twice all the way through. I enjoyed it reguardless of what others think about the blood sacrifice, or the sacrifice of a virtual kid. Its a game, dont like it simply dont play it. Seeing the news article on WND really pissed me off, as whoever wrote it obviously did not even play game. Also Im waiting for Dragon Age Origins 2
I have nothing against the game, I'm an adult, I'm not challenged by pixels.
However the writer(s?) on website which called it "dirty gay sex" should be condemned as a bigot and a homophobe. He/she didn't criticize the game for its "dirty straight sex," did they?
Sigh. To think we're living in thee 21st c.
So because someone does not agree with you, they should be condemned?? ohh wait, forgot thats how liberals think, be tolerant of everyone that agrees with you and condemn the rest as being intolerant...
Exactly, coincidentally, I was also a European History major. There are writers who claim moral decay led to the decay of both civilizations, the other guy is right in that, but he leaves out that they're mostly discredited by serious historians as people with a specific agenda to drive. Take Rome, they actually reigned it in over the last few hundred years if anything. The really crazy stuff was in the pre-Imperial days, or the early Imperial days. I don't think anyone is promoting adultery (heck, even Dragon Age punishes you for sleeping around) or bestiality, but you lumping homosexuality in with those is downright offensive.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Right, but I suspect that's not the school of thought he was on about. There is a group of historians, and a group from way back, that point to morality as the reason the empire fell. Specifically personal morality.
There is no single reason, but yes, the - for lack of a better word - laziness of the actual Romans has also been tossed out as a huge reason. And somewhat confusingly, this theory is often called "moral decay," but not in the sense we were arguing. They always had slavery, but in later years it became just about the only thing they used and the things that made their civilization great (army and thus engineering) suffered greatly.
Try reading Gibbon's two volume "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" you both might learn something.
I am pretty sure that's exactly what we're talking about, at least it's what I was.
Dana Massey Formerly of MMORPG.com Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
Homosexuality, multiple-partner sex, bestiality, and adultery are all forms of sexual deviance that are morally wrong in almost every culture. Protesting against blatant sexual deviance is not homophobia. However protesting against sexual deviance in a game where the object is to run around killing people is a bit absurd.
First of all to claim deviance you have to accept that there is a norm that is being deviated from. And you just can't do that. People all over the world throughout all times have done different things to get off. The idea that a sexual behavior is deviant is false.
Those things are not morally wrong in every culture. I understand that since you think those things are deviant, you also think that 'right-thinking' people all over the world agree with you, but its just not the case.
Now lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a sexual norm, and the things you listed do indeed deviate from that norm. That still doesn't mean those things are wrong, or morally wrong. Different doesn't mean wrong. Also you can't show any harm, so protesting against gay people IS homophobia.
The permissiveness of the US secular culture does not extend to the rest of the world. These acts ARE morally wrong in almost every culture. In some cultures, it even goes so far as to be punished by the death penalty for those who get caught in such situations. If you disagree, go to Saudi Arabia and practice homosexuality publicly.
Despite your wishing otherwise, morally wrong is morally wrong. Those with moral standards have the right to protest against that which they find immoral. Protesting against public display of sexual deviance is not homophobia, it's an attempt to bring moral values to their community and dissuade those practicing deviant behavior from committing immoral acts. The harm is to both those witnessing the acts and those committing them. If you were to stop someone who was about to cut off their hand, would you be handectomyphobic? No, you'd be expressing concern for that person's well-being.
Morally wrong is NOT morally wrong. Morally wrong is whatever a group of people say it is. In some places its morally wrong in some places its not. Why isn't it universal? If it was truly morally wrong, even the places that are fine with it would have to acknowledge that they are ok with being immoral, when in fact countries that are fine with it recognize it isn't immoral. For every country like Saudi Arabia, I can point to you to a country that has absolutely no problem with homosexuality. Not only can you not define what morally wrong is, you can't even back up your claim about it being wrong in almost countries.
As far as your protesting rational, I can show how cutting off someone's hand would harm them, you can't show any harm for homosexuality. Its pure homophobia. To even claim that being gay is immoral is homophobic. And lets be clear, we're not discussing about a "public display of sexual deviance" or are you saying that a public display of man/woman vaginal sex would ok? What we're talking about is public acknowledgment that homosexuality exists and there is nothing wrong with it. Oh, I understand some people think there is something wrong with it, but just because some small-minded people think it, doesn't make it true.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MMORPGS? lol, seriously?
If a MMORPG decides to give you the same choices or provide you sexual content and the MMORPG becomes mainstream, you will get the same conflict. MMORPGs have been covered as an addiction, when they cover games they throw them all in together, so then SPG are seen as the same.
Don't MMOs have ESRB ratings? Do you understand the same effect?
I would rather the game I pick up (after checking it's content mind you) and play it as it was delivered. If you're not understanding what I'm saying feel free to ask any Australian gamer what I'm talking about, all of their games have literally been neutered of most forms of adult content, of coarse if there is not a Australian here to tell you. Look up what they did to L4D2 or manhunt 2.
People need to learn they have the option to ignore one game that does not settle with them. No sense in changing something an apparent majority are fine with.
In short. What effects SP/MP games will affect MMOs.
More right wing fanatics trying to impose their morals on everyone else. What's new?
Apparently homosexuality is the root of all evil and is the most pressing concern to conservatives.
Then again, global warming is a myth. (lol).
Hahaha, there isn't even graphic sexual positions in this game like they claim. You kiss the person and lie down (with underwear and bra still on) and the scene ends!
Apparently the writers have something against spooning.
Spooning! Oh, the horror! What is this world coming to when we can watch 2 males spoon in a video game. We are all doomed I tell you! Repent now!
Yes, spoony love. How dreadful it tis.
I seriously don't have an issue with people who have a set of values, morals, whatever you want to call it, and they live by them. Especially if those values don't infringe or try to dictate how others live.
It's when people like this get up on their soapboxes, virtual or on the street corner, is when I get upset. I don't go around spouting of my values and morals. I keep them to myself. I expect the same in return. If I ask you for yours, by all means, talk to my ears bleed. If I don't, then STFU.
Yeah, kinda like spewing liberal drivel on a gaming website. How oppressive.
Well, if you want to make an assumption on my political affiliations based on that little information, then I'll make one on your 53 years of age and being from Iowa. Vote for Palin again and see where it gets ya!
Wasnt just you i was referring too but considering how well Obama has worked out anyone including Palin might bring some of the "hope" your grasping for.
Not a chance in hell. The day she's elected is the day I move to Canada or England.
That's one thing I never understood about you guys. You want "everyone else" to shut up and let your guy finish their terms before they're judged yet hell has a chance of freezing over before you'll extend that same courtesy should your guy lose office. You want patience when your guy is in, and immediate results (with zero positive aid from your side) when the other guy is in.
I mean, seriously, there is no way you can compare the whiny droning of Al Franken, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow (all who annoy me but I give Keith slack because of his stint on ESPN) to the hate speech of Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, and Ann Coulter. Well, unless you are in lock-step with the latter in which case there is no point in discussing it.
As for "hope", I have none for this country as long as Rush, Bill, Shawn and Ann are on the television and/or radio and people still vote for a Palin. When a certain generation dies out and the "old ways" are gone and it's left to these young kids who exhibit a ton more tolerance than those in power right now...then, only then, might I have some hope.
I'm 32 now and I'm talking when/if I make it to 72 and above.
It is strange the folks who espouse freedom of speech only want it for those they agree with. That’s not what the first amendment means. If you support “Free Speech”, you must support it for everyone, even those who you hate. Free Speech for just the “Politically Correct”, no matter their ideology, is no speech at all. This is the same attitude from the Left, as you see from the Right who would censor these games.
A certain responsibility comes with "free speech". If you and others can't comprehend that then "free speech" becomes dangerous. Can it Political correctness, or whatever you like, but there is a responsibility that comes with using words.
As stated by Edward Bulwer-Lytton: The pen is mightier than the sword.
The words of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'reilly have drawn an immeasurable amount of blood.
Unless they have actualy developed those sonic weapons that were depicted in Dune then "speech" in actuality has never caused a single drop of blood to be shed. What actualy causes blood to be shed is people CHOOSING to ACT upon such speech. Responsibility for any blood spilt lies solidly in the hands of the people CHOOSING to spill it.
The idea that there is "speech/expressions/viewpoints" that is acceptable to be heard and speech that isn't (a viewpoint often taken by the hard Left) is frankly more dangerous, chilling, and authoritarian then anything that has been spewed by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'reilly combined. Frankly, I find their hyperbole often over the top...but on a fair amount of topics I often agree with much of what those individuals have to say..... I guess in your world view....I should be what? Shipped off to a Gulag for holding such opinions?
The bottom line is that in a free country... ALL ideas, no matter how stupid or objectionable are deserving of the opportunity to be heard. That's what makes our country great. We don't have any God-Kings sitting around passing judgement upon what we are are allowed or not allowed to hear.....as if we are infants who are incapable of hearing things which might be harmful to us, unable to think for ourselves and unaccountable for our own actions.
"Free speech" isn't, especially these days. That was originally meant to prevent *government* oppression. We've seen how well that worked in the end, haven't we?... The original concept was that protection of unpopular speech was necessary for the continued health of the republic. That was supposed to be coupled with a free press... Which in an age of corporate mass media, that acts as a Ministry of Truth for government is yet another concept thats long since lost any real substance.
Yes, PC is alive and well, and VERY dangerous. But its not just the cultural marxists who are behind it these days. Those on the "right"(Neo Cons in particular) having discarded any pretense of respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have closed ranks behind the likes of those you mention above, and new ones like Glenn Beck.. In the cross fire between the two sides("Left" and "Right") is lost the fact that many people just want to be left alone, and are LONG past tired of dealing with the consequences of the endless "compromises" between the two aspects of our One Party State.
Bottom line, what business is it of governments what choices people make, just so long as it doesn't involve force or fraud? But thats a concept that in an age of Gitmo, "detaining" people without due process for years, and the Department of Home Land Security is totally ignored.
Comments
Hey, it may not mean much, but I agree with you 100%. I voted Democrat because the Repulicans had it for 8 years and so it was, in my view, time to give the other side a shot. Some Repubs say W wasn't a fiscal conservative. Fine, I won't argue. I do have issue with the rest of you standing by him when he wasn't so fiscally conservative, though, lol.
So yeah, I'd love nothing more than to see a 3rd and 4th party rise to prominence here. I'd also like to see the Senate term limit dropped from 6 years to 4 or 3.
I have to say that what you say scares me.
You voted for the other side to basically give them a shot? Plain and simple, thats dumb thinking or being brainwashed.
I vote for whoever I feel will best support myself and my family over the long haul. Also who has the values I have. I dont vote party line for the sake of seeing what they can do...
Bush was not a fiscal conservative, but I stand by him as he made many of the right choices. But he did bleed money out. The current administration is making a joke of Bush's spending though.
Also, to be on topic, The game does promote homesexual activity if it provides a reward to cheat and engage in such activity (acheivments).
Acheivments are often though not always out of game and have no impact on play, especially romance player acheivmments.
That said the IN GAME rewards for contract killing actually benifits your character with money and equipment. In that senes the game promotes contract killing even more so than homosexual behavior.
(off topic and wrong forum)
Acheivements are odd from an olld gamer perspective and 2/3rds useless.
there 3 types of acheivments
1 Useless achievememt "you completed X level.
2 Bragging acheivement "explored did X content"
3 Useful acheviment "you did X and now gain Y bonus going forward"
Asheron's Call, Champions Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, EverQuest, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft.Waiting for SWTOR
First of all to claim deviance you have to accept that there is a norm that is being deviated from. And you just can't do that. People all over the world throughout all times have done different things to get off. The idea that a sexual behavior is deviant is false.
Those things are not morally wrong in every culture. I understand that since you think those things are deviant, you also think that 'right-thinking' people all over the world agree with you, but its just not the case.
Now lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a sexual norm, and the things you listed do indeed deviate from that norm. That still doesn't mean those things are wrong, or morally wrong. Different doesn't mean wrong. Also you can't show any harm, so protesting against gay people IS homophobia.
The permissiveness of the US secular culture does not extend to the rest of the world. These acts ARE morally wrong in almost every culture. In some cultures, it even goes so far as to be punished by the death penalty for those who get caught in such situations. If you disagree, go to Saudi Arabia and practice homosexuality publicly.
Despite your wishing otherwise, morally wrong is morally wrong. Those with moral standards have the right to protest against that which they find immoral. Protesting against public display of sexual deviance is not homophobia, it's an attempt to bring moral values to their community and dissuade those practicing deviant behavior from committing immoral acts. The harm is to both those witnessing the acts and those committing them. If you were to stop someone who was about to cut off their hand, would you be handectomyphobic? No, you'd be expressing concern for that person's well-being.
That's not even remotely true.
Romans, Greeks and all sorts of other cultures throughout history were completely OK with homosexuality. Historically speaking, in Western culture at least, this moral outcry is a relatively (IE: in the hundreds of years) new development.
Sure, there are cultures where you cannot openly be gay, but there are also cultures where you cannot eat certain animals on certain days of the week. Every culture has its quirks.
But to paint that with such a complete brush is absolutely absurd from a historical point of view.
The fact is, modern science should tell people thinking homosexuality is a choice or immoral is ridiculous. Biologically speaking, 10% of ducks are gay. Get over it.
Your entire pro-deviance argument is that humans are incapable of thinking beyond their sexual organs, so we should just have sex with anything that moves, regardless of morality, social consequences, marital consequences, or medical consequences. That's absurd. If that's really how you feel, all I can say is maybe you should grow up and stop thinking with what's in your pants. "If it feels good, do it" will hurt you and anyone close to you. Look how well this attitude is going over for Tiger Woods and his family. Use Tiger's experience as an example that this lifestyle is wrong and change your attitude while you can.
Historically, you are wrong. Roman and Greek culture didn't start out so open. In fact, historians have argued that the excessive lack of morality towards the end of those ancient cultures were what tipped the balance and caused those cultures to fail.
No, actually Dana is right. Their cultures were indeed very open about it. I've spent the last year and a half to two years (as a European History major) talking about the history and culture of that part of the world, as well as others. Never once did homosexual relations come up as a reason for their downfall. It was, oh, I don't know, the invading armies from other cultures, some of which practiced homosexuality as well, that overran them, in short.
Man, it's so wild to experience hate disguised in so many ways.
Exactly, coincidentally, I was also a European History major.
There are writers who claim moral decay led to the decay of both civilizations, the other guy is right in that, but he leaves out that they're mostly discredited by serious historians as people with a specific agenda to drive.
Take Rome, they actually reigned it in over the last few hundred years if anything. The really crazy stuff was in the pre-Imperial days, or the early Imperial days.
I don't think anyone is promoting adultery (heck, even Dragon Age punishes you for sleeping around) or bestiality, but you lumping homosexuality in with those is downright offensive.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Would all the prudes just get over themselves, a good adventure story is borning without getting the girl or the guy.
I am lesbian I doubt many of the straight laced prudes buy the game or play it. in a phrase...screw them.
I like being able to have my female have a romance with MY choice of characters.
Bioware made one of the best games there is it sells on the adventure, the romance and the storyline. All this bullshit about the romance not being straight or its dirty is just our repressed nay sayers and tot hem I say get off the computer and go get laid you might not be such a prude or tight ass anymore.
ok i have a Dwarf Character and i wanna sleep with Shale - The Golem - is that also bad??
World start looking for "news" in the most stupid places he can find whean he does not have with something else...
Hell i heard some months ago that Catholick church throing words for ........Donald Duck for hes NOT wearing pants and hes a pervet...... COMOOOOONN!!!!! WHAT ELSE!!!
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ROFL!!! now that i dint think of it ahahhahahaha!!!!
I wish they would get over it, BUT it is not likely as prudes/likely conservatives, like to bash and condemn what they find immoral it is a hobby for some, and a calling for others.
I am socially liberal and I love to bash religion, for its closed mindedness. I just have the decency to keep my bashing to my own blogs for the most part and my discussions with people open minded enough to listen to me berate their beliefs. I try not to bash people who aren't up for it and I try to keep my bashing in the right forums.
I argue more story options equals better story even if those options arent to your liking, and in fact might give you the opportunity to deviate from what you would normally do. Oh wait what is that roleplay OMG its a role playing game.
I dont know im babbling now been reading this thread to long.
Asheron's Call, Champions Online, Dark Age of Camelot, EVE Online, EverQuest, Lineage 2, Star Wars Galaxies and World of Warcraft.Waiting for SWTOR
I wish they would get over it, BUT it is not likely as prudes/likely conservatives, like to bash and condemn what they find immoral it is a hobby for some, and a calling for others.
I am socially liberal and I love to bash religion, for its closed mindedness. I just have the decency to keep my bashing to my own blogs for the most part and my discussions with people open minded enough to listen to me berate their beliefs. I try not to bash people who aren't up for it and I try to keep my bashing in the right forums.
I argue more story options equals better story even if those options arent to your liking, and in fact might give you the opportunity to deviate from what you would normally do. Oh wait what is that roleplay OMG its a role playing game.
I dont know im babbling now been reading this thread to long.
religion sucks and you dont' have to have any sex in the game if you don't want to
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ROFL!!! now that i dint think of it ahahhahahaha!!!!
or what about sleeping with morrigan after she shape shifted XD
bow chicka bow wow is all i have to say Leilana is my toons lesbian lover XD
damn i wonder what it would be like to have a dwarf sleep with wynne
I couldn't care less what a mature rated game contains. Its the parent's responsibility to know what the kiddies are whatching.
This attitude on the part of World News Daily reflects how little veting is done. They get a juicy topic and run with it. Check it out first??? Naaa, this puppy is hot!
Assumptions are made based on pre-concieved notions about what is going on....much like the above quote!!!!!
World News isn't a 'radical right wing publication. It is a liberal...and I use the term loosely :P.
Quote fron World News Daily info on a search:
A daily round-up of the latest international news from msnbc.com and its partners, including NBC News, Newsweek and the Washington Post. With features and analysis by NBC reporters ...
These are hardly right wing pubs. It would seem Khalathwyr has the same problem with judging something based on his/her own blind bias
This is just another "news story" to keep people from thinking about all the good things that socialism has brought to the world.
Yeah, cause you're an authority on the socialism.
"Duck and cover"
Sorry pops, the 1950s are gone. Socialism, just like the beloved Free Market Capitalism we have, are all viable and all dependent on the power mongers running them. You have a corrupt elite running them, and they all are doomed to fail, which I think history has proven now.
To blame the system shows you know nothing about the system. It's the people implementing them that caused them to fail.
yeah im stuck in the past i guess, i see how well socialism has worked and cant wait for Obama's corruption to make it fail here.
Yet you're in complete denial of free market capitalism, with a joke for regulation, has failed equally. Nope, don't want to talk about that. Ignore the man behind the screen, lol!
At least you're honest about it. More than I can say for some of the other yokels in here.
I dont know how the U.S. became the richest country in the world without embracing socialism. Maybe you can explain to me how it is that western europe is doing so well and yet demanding money for the U.N. and the farce known as global warming?
Seems like the difference between socialism and capitalism seems marginal at best. Seems mostly different on paper, but when you take a look at america at closer view, it's actually quite a bit socialisitic in many aspects. Sorry just had to add my 2cents into both of you're interesting debate.
I'm actually not afraid of more socialism in our country, I mean if America needs it, then we should adapt... One thing you can say about Americans that seems historically true, is that we are good at changing, adapting and evolving as a country... generally speaking ofc.
I agree it takes a balance of the two. My problem with the current administration is too much power. I do not like either party to have as much power as the liberals have at this time. The presidency and both houses is too much power to wield,be it a left or right wing administration.
He who is with out sin must get stoned.
That is not a newspaper, it's a supermarket tabloid that looks for Elvis.
Liberals think the Social Sciences have the answers so they should control out lives. Conservatives think God has given them the answers so they should have control our lives. I say "Get the Hell out of out lives, let us screw it up ourselves.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Right, but I suspect that's not the school of thought he was on about. There is a group of historians, and a group from way back, that point to morality as the reason the empire fell. Specifically personal morality.
There is no single reason, but yes, the - for lack of a better word - laziness of the actual Romans has also been tossed out as a huge reason. And somewhat confusingly, this theory is often called "moral decay," but not in the sense we were arguing. They always had slavery, but in later years it became just about the only thing they used and the things that made their civilization great (army and thus engineering) suffered greatly.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
what about shale sleeping with the dog or lelianna sleeping with shale and the dog XD too funny
ROFL!!! now that i dint think of it ahahhahahaha!!!!
or what about sleeping with morrigan after she shape shifted XD
As long as it is not the spider.....I'm terrified of spiders lol...though how hard could be to sleep with the swarm of bees.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Right, but I suspect that's not the school of thought he was on about. There is a group of historians, and a group from way back, that point to morality as the reason the empire fell. Specifically personal morality.
There is no single reason, but yes, the - for lack of a better word - laziness of the actual Romans has also been tossed out as a huge reason. And somewhat confusingly, this theory is often called "moral decay," but not in the sense we were arguing. They always had slavery, but in later years it became just about the only thing they used and the things that made their civilization great (army and thus engineering) suffered greatly.
Try reading Gibbon's two volume "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" you both might learn something.
I've been around. Traveled and worked with people in Africa, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Inner Mongolia, China, Australia and I've lived in both Europe and the USA. I'm not exactly young anymore. I'm a scientist, mostly concerned with matters of zoonotic disease and public health.
The United States certainly has its good points. In the case of global warming though, the degree of greed and consumerism, and the assurance in Americans that they *deserve* to live as they do, will be a key driver behind why little is done to slow warming, let alone reverse the damage. I understand they are not the only people that such criticism can be leveled. Australians are another, and I am Australian. They are though, along with China, the country that needs to be the most convinced. Instead, skepticism (of the kind above) that warming is taking place or that mankind is responsible for it, is incredibly common in the US at levels nowhere else in the world.
Climate change is happening right now with this decade to be the warmest on record. It is not a matter of it being in vogue to believe this, citizens of the USA simply have a lot of catching up to do because of the countries recent political history. Scientists are an intrinsically cautious group of people, and even more so when advising government on taking action. Had the USA had a similar mindset to the Europeans perhaps something might have been done. It is far too late now and it is very much a matter of how bad will the consequences be and whether we can mitigate them. History will judge us harshly and future generations will shake their heads in shame.
(Sorry to be so off topic but this sort of thing is worth saying.)
This is similar to what happened when Mortal Kombat first came out. Man I remember how excited I was to play a game that splurted blood whenever someone got hit and also let you rip people's heads off and burn them alive...
I've been around. Traveled and worked with people in Africa, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Inner Mongolia, China, Australia and I've lived in both Europe and the USA. I'm not exactly young anymore. I'm a scientist, mostly concerned with matters of zoonotic disease and public health.
The United States certainly has its good points. In the case of global warming though, the degree of greed and consumerism, and the assurance in Americans that they *deserve* to live as they do, will be a key driver behind why little is done to slow warming, let alone reverse the damage. I understand they are not the only people that such criticism can be leveled. Australians are another, and I am Australian. They are though, along with China, the country that needs to be the most convinced. Instead, skepticism (of the kind above) that warming is taking place or that mankind is responsible for it, is incredibly common in the US at levels nowhere else in the world.
Climate change is happening right now with this decade to be the warmest on record. It is not a matter of it being in vogue to believe this, citizens of the USA simply have a lot of catching up to do because of the countries recent political history. Scientists are an intrinsically cautious group of people, and even more so when advising government on taking action. Had the USA had a similar mindset to the Europeans perhaps something might have been done. It is far too late now and it is very much a matter of how bad will the consequences be and whether we can mitigate them. History will judge us harshly and future generations will shake their heads in shame.
(Sorry to be so off topic but this sort of thing is worth saying.)
As P.J. O’Rourke quoted in his book “All The Trouble In The World”, one noted environmentalist said back in the Eighties;
“We have to strike a balance between offering up scary scenarios- and actually telling the truth.”
The fellow who said that was none other than then U.s. Senator Al Gore. An “inconvenient truth” if there ever was one.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MMORPGS?
lol, seriously?
"It is in your nature to do one thing correctly; Before me, you rightfully tremble. But, fear is not what you owe me. You owe me awe." ~Francis Dolarhyde
I honestly do not see why an mature adult would be offended by a Sex scene which lasts like 30 seconds if not less. I mean seriously for crying out loud. We watch Live TV with more sexual cotnent than in a video game. I dont know about anyone else But I have played Dragonage orgins twice all the way through. I enjoyed it reguardless of what others think about the blood sacrifice, or the sacrifice of a virtual kid. Its a game, dont like it simply dont play it. Seeing the news article on WND really pissed me off, as whoever wrote it obviously did not even play game. Also Im waiting for Dragon Age Origins 2
So because someone does not agree with you, they should be condemned?? ohh wait, forgot thats how liberals think, be tolerant of everyone that agrees with you and condemn the rest as being intolerant...
Sigh. To think we're living in the 21st c.
Agreed.
Wasn't the arguement more along the lines of a decline in "civic virtues" rather then neccesarly "moral decay" per se (at least as far as Modern Christianity would define "morality".....as the virtues espoused by ancient Rome/Greece... didn't neccesarly map to what we would consider "moral").
I always found the "Civic Virtue" arguement to have some teeth to it....at least for Rome....didn't really learn much Greek history.
I mean part of the Western Empires problems were due to it's reliance on peoples living on the fringe of the Empire and not properly "Roman" to perform much of the duties that the Empire relied on for it's existance because the "Romans" themselves were too comfortable to want to get thier hands duty.
Perfect example being the heavy reliance on Ostrogoth soldiers to bare the brunt of combat for many of Rome's conflicts....only to have the Ostrogoths turn around and defeat Romes Legions in the field and then sack Rome when they grew disatisfied with thier treatment by the Empire. Thier ability to do so in no small part because their service made them better trained/experienced in the Roman method of making war then most of Romes own soldiers and commanders.
Right, but I suspect that's not the school of thought he was on about. There is a group of historians, and a group from way back, that point to morality as the reason the empire fell. Specifically personal morality.
There is no single reason, but yes, the - for lack of a better word - laziness of the actual Romans has also been tossed out as a huge reason. And somewhat confusingly, this theory is often called "moral decay," but not in the sense we were arguing. They always had slavery, but in later years it became just about the only thing they used and the things that made their civilization great (army and thus engineering) suffered greatly.
Try reading Gibbon's two volume "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" you both might learn something.
I am pretty sure that's exactly what we're talking about, at least it's what I was.
Dana Massey
Formerly of MMORPG.com
Currently Lead Designer for Bit Trap Studios
First of all to claim deviance you have to accept that there is a norm that is being deviated from. And you just can't do that. People all over the world throughout all times have done different things to get off. The idea that a sexual behavior is deviant is false.
Those things are not morally wrong in every culture. I understand that since you think those things are deviant, you also think that 'right-thinking' people all over the world agree with you, but its just not the case.
Now lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a sexual norm, and the things you listed do indeed deviate from that norm. That still doesn't mean those things are wrong, or morally wrong. Different doesn't mean wrong. Also you can't show any harm, so protesting against gay people IS homophobia.
The permissiveness of the US secular culture does not extend to the rest of the world. These acts ARE morally wrong in almost every culture. In some cultures, it even goes so far as to be punished by the death penalty for those who get caught in such situations. If you disagree, go to Saudi Arabia and practice homosexuality publicly.
Despite your wishing otherwise, morally wrong is morally wrong. Those with moral standards have the right to protest against that which they find immoral. Protesting against public display of sexual deviance is not homophobia, it's an attempt to bring moral values to their community and dissuade those practicing deviant behavior from committing immoral acts. The harm is to both those witnessing the acts and those committing them. If you were to stop someone who was about to cut off their hand, would you be handectomyphobic? No, you'd be expressing concern for that person's well-being.
Morally wrong is NOT morally wrong. Morally wrong is whatever a group of people say it is. In some places its morally wrong in some places its not. Why isn't it universal? If it was truly morally wrong, even the places that are fine with it would have to acknowledge that they are ok with being immoral, when in fact countries that are fine with it recognize it isn't immoral. For every country like Saudi Arabia, I can point to you to a country that has absolutely no problem with homosexuality. Not only can you not define what morally wrong is, you can't even back up your claim about it being wrong in almost countries.
As far as your protesting rational, I can show how cutting off someone's hand would harm them, you can't show any harm for homosexuality. Its pure homophobia. To even claim that being gay is immoral is homophobic. And lets be clear, we're not discussing about a "public display of sexual deviance" or are you saying that a public display of man/woman vaginal sex would ok? What we're talking about is public acknowledgment that homosexuality exists and there is nothing wrong with it. Oh, I understand some people think there is something wrong with it, but just because some small-minded people think it, doesn't make it true.
If a MMORPG decides to give you the same choices or provide you sexual content and the MMORPG becomes mainstream, you will get the same conflict. MMORPGs have been covered as an addiction, when they cover games they throw them all in together, so then SPG are seen as the same.
Don't MMOs have ESRB ratings? Do you understand the same effect?
I would rather the game I pick up (after checking it's content mind you) and play it as it was delivered. If you're not understanding what I'm saying feel free to ask any Australian gamer what I'm talking about, all of their games have literally been neutered of most forms of adult content, of coarse if there is not a Australian here to tell you. Look up what they did to L4D2 or manhunt 2.
People need to learn they have the option to ignore one game that does not settle with them. No sense in changing something an apparent majority are fine with.
In short. What effects SP/MP games will affect MMOs.
Apparently homosexuality is the root of all evil and is the most pressing concern to conservatives.
Then again, global warming is a myth. (lol).
Hahaha, there isn't even graphic sexual positions in this game like they claim. You kiss the person and lie down (with underwear and bra still on) and the scene ends!
Apparently the writers have something against spooning.
Spooning! Oh, the horror! What is this world coming to when we can watch 2 males spoon in a video game. We are all doomed I tell you! Repent now!
Yes, spoony love. How dreadful it tis.
I seriously don't have an issue with people who have a set of values, morals, whatever you want to call it, and they live by them. Especially if those values don't infringe or try to dictate how others live.
It's when people like this get up on their soapboxes, virtual or on the street corner, is when I get upset. I don't go around spouting of my values and morals. I keep them to myself. I expect the same in return. If I ask you for yours, by all means, talk to my ears bleed. If I don't, then STFU.
Yeah, kinda like spewing liberal drivel on a gaming website. How oppressive.
Well, if you want to make an assumption on my political affiliations based on that little information, then I'll make one on your 53 years of age and being from Iowa. Vote for Palin again and see where it gets ya!
Wasnt just you i was referring too but considering how well Obama has worked out anyone including Palin might bring some of the "hope" your grasping for.
Not a chance in hell. The day she's elected is the day I move to Canada or England.
That's one thing I never understood about you guys. You want "everyone else" to shut up and let your guy finish their terms before they're judged yet hell has a chance of freezing over before you'll extend that same courtesy should your guy lose office. You want patience when your guy is in, and immediate results (with zero positive aid from your side) when the other guy is in.
I mean, seriously, there is no way you can compare the whiny droning of Al Franken, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow (all who annoy me but I give Keith slack because of his stint on ESPN) to the hate speech of Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, and Ann Coulter. Well, unless you are in lock-step with the latter in which case there is no point in discussing it.
As for "hope", I have none for this country as long as Rush, Bill, Shawn and Ann are on the television and/or radio and people still vote for a Palin. When a certain generation dies out and the "old ways" are gone and it's left to these young kids who exhibit a ton more tolerance than those in power right now...then, only then, might I have some hope.
I'm 32 now and I'm talking when/if I make it to 72 and above.
It is strange the folks who espouse freedom of speech only want it for those they agree with. That’s not what the first amendment means. If you support “Free Speech”, you must support it for everyone, even those who you hate. Free Speech for just the “Politically Correct”, no matter their ideology, is no speech at all. This is the same attitude from the Left, as you see from the Right who would censor these games.
A certain responsibility comes with "free speech". If you and others can't comprehend that then "free speech" becomes dangerous. Can it Political correctness, or whatever you like, but there is a responsibility that comes with using words.
As stated by Edward Bulwer-Lytton: The pen is mightier than the sword.
The words of Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'reilly have drawn an immeasurable amount of blood.
Unless they have actualy developed those sonic weapons that were depicted in Dune then "speech" in actuality has never caused a single drop of blood to be shed. What actualy causes blood to be shed is people CHOOSING to ACT upon such speech. Responsibility for any blood spilt lies solidly in the hands of the people CHOOSING to spill it.
The idea that there is "speech/expressions/viewpoints" that is acceptable to be heard and speech that isn't (a viewpoint often taken by the hard Left) is frankly more dangerous, chilling, and authoritarian then anything that has been spewed by Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity and O'reilly combined. Frankly, I find their hyperbole often over the top...but on a fair amount of topics I often agree with much of what those individuals have to say..... I guess in your world view....I should be what? Shipped off to a Gulag for holding such opinions?
The bottom line is that in a free country... ALL ideas, no matter how stupid or objectionable are deserving of the opportunity to be heard. That's what makes our country great. We don't have any God-Kings sitting around passing judgement upon what we are are allowed or not allowed to hear.....as if we are infants who are incapable of hearing things which might be harmful to us, unable to think for ourselves and unaccountable for our own actions.
"Free speech" isn't, especially these days. That was originally meant to prevent *government* oppression. We've seen how well that worked in the end, haven't we?... The original concept was that protection of unpopular speech was necessary for the continued health of the republic. That was supposed to be coupled with a free press... Which in an age of corporate mass media, that acts as a Ministry of Truth for government is yet another concept thats long since lost any real substance.
Yes, PC is alive and well, and VERY dangerous. But its not just the cultural marxists who are behind it these days. Those on the "right"(Neo Cons in particular) having discarded any pretense of respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have closed ranks behind the likes of those you mention above, and new ones like Glenn Beck.. In the cross fire between the two sides("Left" and "Right") is lost the fact that many people just want to be left alone, and are LONG past tired of dealing with the consequences of the endless "compromises" between the two aspects of our One Party State.
Bottom line, what business is it of governments what choices people make, just so long as it doesn't involve force or fraud? But thats a concept that in an age of Gitmo, "detaining" people without due process for years, and the Department of Home Land Security is totally ignored.