Jimquisition: Tomodachi Strife

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 

Ultratwinkie:

There's actually an explanation for that, I am from there. It was prop 8 right?

Well people got very confused on the wording at the ballot boxes.

It was prop 8, yes or no.

This caused confusion because people didn't know what either of those two meant. Was yes for banning gay marriage, or was it yes for letting them get married?

One person got confused, asked others, they got confused too, then it all went downhill. I remember talking to voters the day after the vote and they were asking me if yes meant allowing gay marriage. It was a common thing. No one knew what they were voting for.

Even people who asked me on my stance on prop 8 got confused what yes and no meant so they asked me if I supported gay marriage instead. It got ridiculous.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't a serious thing with actual tangible consequences.

i see. Vague wording does indeed can cause problems here, but i was talking about more than prop 8 alone. Still, thank you for deeper explanation.

martyrdrebel27:
so, is Jim bisexual? ultimately, it doesn't matter, but i am curious. which is an odd duality... i'd never judge anyone's sexual preferences, but i'm always curious about it.

around one year ago Jim has said that he "likes to experiment" and does not really have preference either way. Unless his views have changed since hes kinda there. He is also married and has a boy that is not biologically his, but his wives. and yes im a stalker.

Houseman:

Yes, I understood all of that before you ever claimed that my argument was a strawman.

So then, how do you not understand that your argument is a straw man?

Houseman:
So do you mind telling us what the "original argument" is that I'm misrepresenting? Can you quote it? Link to it?

Seriously?

Watch Video

Houseman:

I said "would disagree" not "do disagree", even though they do disagree.

Would you care to try again?

No, you've demonstrated it quite nicely. You have repeatedly referred to arguments that Tumblr "would make" - thus proving my point of you being disingenuous and setting up straw men.

Your whole tactic was to derail with irrelevant arguments. The problem is that you failed in your straw man attempts, because nobody fell for them. For some strange reason, you think this means you've "won" the argument.

Therumancer:

If you're done here, so am I. Walls of text may look impressive if they're composed of coherent points; less so when they break down into repetitive strings of slurs, and the frankly inane argument that people in smaller numbers should be treated unequally.

As well as, of course, the failure to address my point (for the third time) that the arguments you've used are identical to those used against mixed-race relationships.

I do not want another wall-o'-text.

Therumancer:
If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.

Right. First, you made the claim that gay activists demand to be shown in equal numbers as straight people. You made that claim twice. I called that bull. Can you provide any evidence of that-- any significant examples?

When I called it out, you did not provide any basis for the original claim, and moved onto other points. That's moving the goalposts. Can you support the accusation, or not?

Aardvaarkman:

So then, how do you not understand that your argument is a straw man?

Because I, unlike you, know what a strawman is and what my argument is, and I can see the two don't match up.

Seriously?

Watch Video

So you're saying I'm misrepresenting Jim's argument by presenting a point of view as if it were Tumblr's?

No, you've demonstrated it quite nicely. You have repeatedly referred to arguments that Tumblr "would make"

Yes, which means that I'm not actually misrepresenting anyone's actual arguments.
Saying what someone would say is a hypothetical.

- thus proving my point of you being disingenuous and setting up straw men.

I can see how you could have come to this conclusion if you didn't understand what the word "would" means, or perhaps confused it with the word "is".

Your whole tactic was to derail with irrelevant arguments.

I was talking about the slippery slope of including certain groups but excluding certain other groups.
Once you gave up arguing that point, you started talking about what is or isn't a strawman. Seems like you're the one doing the derailing here.

Aardvaarkman:

Scars Unseen:

It is not their job to develop this game. That was their job. They finished it. Over a year ago.

Except, they didn't. The Japanese version of the game was released over a year ago. This is not the same game, otherwise, why didn't they release it to the other countries then?

Also, it's the job of game developers to continue to support and fix bugs in games. Once again, you're not exactly making the case that they are competent developers. Professionals would not just release a game and then completely ignore it after that. Especially in the case of a major world-wide re-release.

You really think it's acceptable for them just to release this to a much larger audience, and not make any effort in developing it for that audience, or fixing any problems that might come with that release?

Yes, they did. They aren't making a new game; they're exporting the one they have. Japan has been doing this for decades. And there is a huge difference between patching a bug, and adding a feature. The first is supporting a game. The second is developing it, which as I've already said, was completed a year ago.

As for the second, yes, I do. That's what Japan has been doing for decades, and one of my favorite genres of gaming, the JRPG, would not be the same if the Japanese had tried to cater to the west's tastes. In fact, trying to do so is one of the biggest recent failures we've seen on that front, as was pointed out in another recent Jimquisition.

Let Japan be Japan. If you don't like Japan's games, don't play them.

Houseman:

I was talking about the slippery slope of including certain groups but excluding certain other groups.

...Which is identical to the argument used against mixed-race relationships in the past.

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:
As in a message of personal acceptance of who they are of who one is is exactly the opposite of what homosexuals had to deal with making your comparison rather silly.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.

That would be par for the course here though. The comparison between the two in the first place is what is flawed race, gender, sexuality are all biological traits right down to the genome.

Again, we didn't always know this.
If your point is "We have scientifically proven people physically cannot help it so that's how it's different than being an otherkin", then let's go back in time a century or two.

Back then, when we didn't have any scientific proof of ingrained homosexuality, would it be okay to exclude homosexuals from Tomodachi life because nobody had any scientific proof that they couldn't help it?

It's a false equivalency and a straw man to compare it people wanting to be goats. In the end it just shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter. Do a little research next time.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. I'd be interested to see what I wrote above.

Yeah, umm, wow really? I don't know if you know how DNA works or not but given that a good majority of these other kin identify with fictional man made or conceptual objects it would be impossible for those to impact DNA. What with there being no DNA to impact and all. The best you could argue for would be identification with species along our direct evolutionary line though only the social species would have DNA related to self identification thus limiting it to some higher order mammals most of which are species that are now extinct and few if any are mentioned on Tumblr of the few when referenced they are highly personified and conceptualized which again are things that do not come from DNA. These are social constructs and learned behavior. So like I said read a book because there is clearly not enough understanding of these concepts on your side of the argument.

Silvanus:
[

Therumancer:
If you think the goalposts moved you weren't paying attention to begin with.

Right. First, you made the claim that gay activists demand to be shown in equal numbers as straight people. You made that claim twice. I called that bull. Can you provide any evidence of that-- any significant examples?

When I called it out, you did not provide any basis for the original claim, and moved onto other points. That's moving the goalposts. Can you support the accusation, or not?

This entire discussion is about exactly that. As I said, your involved in an entirely different conversation than me, or pretty much anyone else involved in discussing this subject. This entire issue is specifically about the gay demand to be represented in a video game, as a right, and that to not include them is some kind of attack. This is also not the first time this issue has come up.

You yourself keep making the argument that equality = representation, it's what you keep saying. Indeed you keep making my point for me by making attack arguments, claiming I'm using slurs, and am being offensive, for simply pointing out the truth and saying that gays are abnormal (normality in this case being heterosexual, which is the vast majority of people, gays are different from that and thus abnormal, that's not an attack, just a statement of fact, gays themselves acknowledge themselves as a separate group and even represent and organize that way). You right here in this response are saying that it's discriminatory to not consider minority populations entitled to representation in creative works, as that is what this conversation is about.

I keep saying the same thing because it doesn't matter what other groups you say this applies to, the bottom line is that NO fringe group, it doesn't matter who it is, is entitled to anything, never mind representation in creative work. Gay, mixed race, polygamist, it doesn't matter who it is. If you bothered to actually READ those "walls of text" you'd know I already said that the same argument DOES apply to mixed race couples. Every time a mono-ethnic relationship is depicted one does not need to show a mixed race couple to represent a counterpoint. Indeed those involved in mixed race marriages and partnerships aren't pushing for that kind of media representation, but gays are.

As I said, we're pretty much done with this. You don't even seem to know what this conversation is about, and frankly if you think gays are entitled to such representation, you've said your piece, I've said I disagree, plenty of people agree with both of us in an absolute sense, so there is no real point to saying anything more about it. Frankly half the problem with this issue is fanaticism on the part of the gay movement. On some levels I think you honestly believe slurs are involved here, and that's a bad sign for healthy representation. To be blunt when the gay rights movement got started it understood full well it was a small niche group, and was all about being decriminalized and the right to exist. It won that, and now it seems it's all about denial of it's own existence as something outside of normal, mainstream, society. One cannot claim both the status of a minority in need of special consideration, and deny one's very existence as an minority/abnormality within the society it's campaigning in, that's contradictory, and impossible to take seriously. There is no further point to debating this, but really you might want to collect your thoughts and focus a bit better if similar things recurs, because part of what causes you to miss the point of the discussion is that in absolute terms you really have no idea what your fighting for, your just blindly lashing out, and projecting offense onto everything looking for something to use as a weapon when really, you don't need one over something like this. It's hardly the end of the world, or some kind of affront, to not be depicted in a video game, especially when other creators (like Bioware) have chosen to put gays into video games on their own without needing any kind of political pressure. This is not about saying gays shouldn't be represented, merely that they, and all other groups with similar status, are not *entitled* to such representation. If you don't like something, don't buy the product, but don't attack creators for not catering to you.

Therumancer:

This entire discussion is about exactly that. As I said, your involved in an entirely different conversation than me, or pretty much anyone else involved in discussing this subject. This entire issue is specifically about the gay demand to be represented in a video game, as a right, and that to not include them is some kind of attack. This is also not the first time this issue has come up.

You yourself keep making the argument that equality = representation, it's what you keep saying. Indeed you keep making my point for me by making attack arguments, claiming I'm using slurs, and am being offensive, for simply pointing out the truth and saying that gays are abnormal (normality in this case being heterosexual, which is the vast majority of people, gays are different from that and thus abnormal, that's not an attack, just a statement of fact, gays themselves acknowledge themselves as a separate group and even represent and organize that way). You right here in this response are saying that it's discriminatory to not consider minority populations entitled to representation in creative works, as that is what this conversation is about.

If by "abnormal" you simply mean "not of the common type", then yes, homosexuality is "abnormal"-- as is ginger hair. The term has implications of "lesser" when it's thrown around as a justification for unequal treatment, you understand.

You still haven't addressed the fact that you initially claimed that gay people were demanding representation in equal numbers, and when I requested examples or evidence, you just started talking about other stuff.

Therumancer:

I keep saying the same thing because it doesn't matter what other groups you say this applies to, the bottom line is that NO fringe group, it doesn't matter who it is, is entitled to anything, never mind representation in creative work. Gay, mixed race, polygamist, it doesn't matter who it is. If you bothered to actually READ those "walls of text" you'd know I already said that the same argument DOES apply to mixed race couples. Every time a mono-ethnic relationship is depicted one does not need to show a mixed race couple to represent a counterpoint. Indeed those involved in mixed race marriages and partnerships aren't pushing for that kind of media representation, but gays are.

Another generalisation with "but gays are", as if they are homogeneous.

Nobody is "entitled" to representation. Straight people are no more "entitled" to representation than minorities. Would you have the same reaction if straight relationships were disallowed in a well-publicised game?

Essentially, I'm saying that it's veeeery easy (and complacent) to criticise "entitlement" when you're in the group that is catered to by every medium. Very easy.

Therumancer:
On some levels I think you honestly believe slurs are involved here, and that's a bad sign for healthy representation. To be blunt when the gay rights movement got started it understood full well it was a small niche group, and was all about being decriminalized and the right to exist. It won that, and now it seems it's all about denial of it's own existence as something outside of normal, mainstream, society. One cannot claim both the status of a minority in need of special consideration, and deny one's very existence as an minority/abnormality within the society it's campaigning in, that's contradictory, and impossible to take seriously.

Again reiteration of the notion that the gay rights issue should have ended when homosexuality was decriminalised. As I said before, anyone who believes this needs to realise the violence and discrimination gay people face.

That aside, it should be clear that people can be minorities and also exist within "mainstream" society. Requesting recognition does not somehow mean you have to live outside mainstream society-- that seems like a bizarre idea. Nobody is denying that they are a minority; they're asking to be treated equally alongside the majority.

Gay people are not requesting "special consideration". They are requesting equal treatment.

EDITed to tone the post down, make it less combative. I need to remember to do that more often.

Silvanus:
[

Again reiteration of the notion that the gay rights issue should have ended when homosexuality was decriminalised. As I said before, anyone who believes this needs to realise the violence and discrimination gay people face.

That aside, it should be clear that people can be minorities and also exist within "mainstream" society. Requesting recognition does not somehow mean you have to live outside mainstream society-- that seems like a bizarre idea. Nobody is denying that they are a minority; they're asking to be treated equally alongside the majority.

Gay people are not requesting "special consideration". They are requesting equal treatment.

EDITed to tone the post down, make it less combative. I need to remember to do that more often.

Again, there is no need to "prove" anything this entire incident says it all when it comes to demanding equal representation. Your example is this debate. Your just being obtuse, and I'm not going to "answer" you again.

... and yes, gay people are demanding "special treatment" when they are saying they are entitled to representation in the creative media, and that it's wrong not to include them. That is the very definition of "special consideration". Again that is what this entire discussion is about. The subject is Nintendo being "called out" and put on the defensive for not having gays represented in their product. If Nintendo had included them it would have been fine, but it is by no means an affront not to include them, or any other group, that's the right of a creator. You can choose to not partake of the product, but have no "moral high ground" or valid political point based around your exclusion if nobody is attacking you.

Also I don't much care if people want to project negativity onto "abmormality", that's a complex on their part, I generally don't play the political correctness game and try and fine half a dozen non-offensive words to make a simple statement. As much as gays might want to be considered normal, they are not, that is simple reality. Whether they can or will be considered more socially acceptable by the mainstream and appear more frequently in media and such is another question entirely, but trying to make political attacks on creators for daring to not represent you is not the way to do it. Indeed it's that sense of entitlement that makes enemies, and that's what this is, a political crusade to force people to do what the gay rights movement wants out of a sense of entitlement.

Therumancer:

... and yes, gay people are demanding "special treatment" when they are saying they are entitled to representation in the creative media, and that it's wrong not to include them. That is the very definition of "special consideration". Again that is what this entire discussion is about. The subject is Nintendo being "called out" and put on the defensive for not having gays represented in their product. If Nintendo had included them it would have been fine, but it is by no means an affront not to include them, or any other group, that's the right of a creator. You can choose to not partake of the product, but have no "moral high ground" or valid political point based around your exclusion if nobody is attacking you.

But... straight people are represented. Gay people are requesting the same thing (as an option). Equal treatment is not "special consideration".

Therumancer:

Also I don't much care if people want to project negativity onto "abmormality", that's a complex on their part, I generally don't play the political correctness game and try and fine half a dozen non-offensive words to make a simple statement. As much as gays might want to be considered normal, they are not, that is simple reality. Whether they can or will be considered more socially acceptable by the mainstream and appear more frequently in media and such is another question entirely, but trying to make political attacks on creators for daring to not represent you is not the way to do it. Indeed it's that sense of entitlement that makes enemies, and that's what this is, a political crusade to force people to do what the gay rights movement wants out of a sense of entitlement.

I've already pointed out that if by "normality" you meant "not of the common type", then that's a useless definition in this case; equally applicable to ginger hair or any number of other harmless characteristics. And, of course, that the majority are not "entitled" to representation either; they just receive it in abundance.

You also didn't address several of the issues I mentioned (including the misguided idea that the gay rights issue should have ended with decriminalisation).

I think its time to /thread on this. Just feel the entirety of the argument/debate has run its course, Sterling posted his retraction and deconstructing each others opinions is just becoming tedious and irrelevant. You all have your views and how valid they are is a matter of perspective, right and wrong. 13 pages over an oversight and the corresponding fallout seems to be grinding the original subject matter's discussion to an impasse of analysis of viewpoints of an extraneous subject digression.
I'm not saying move on, the discussion at the core is definitely well worth continuing, I just wonder if we've digressed past usefulness here is all.

Silvanus:

Therumancer:

... and yes, gay people are demanding "special treatment" when they are saying they are entitled to representation in the creative media, and that it's wrong not to include them. That is the very definition of "special consideration". Again that is what this entire discussion is about. The subject is Nintendo being "called out" and put on the defensive for not having gays represented in their product. If Nintendo had included them it would have been fine, but it is by no means an affront not to include them, or any other group, that's the right of a creator. You can choose to not partake of the product, but have no "moral high ground" or valid political point based around your exclusion if nobody is attacking you.

But... straight people are represented. Gay people are requesting the same thing (as an option). Equal treatment is not "special consideration".

Therumancer:

Also I don't much care if people want to project negativity onto "abmormality", that's a complex on their part, I generally don't play the political correctness game and try and fine half a dozen non-offensive words to make a simple statement. As much as gays might want to be considered normal, they are not, that is simple reality. Whether they can or will be considered more socially acceptable by the mainstream and appear more frequently in media and such is another question entirely, but trying to make political attacks on creators for daring to not represent you is not the way to do it. Indeed it's that sense of entitlement that makes enemies, and that's what this is, a political crusade to force people to do what the gay rights movement wants out of a sense of entitlement.

I've already pointed out that if by "normality" you meant "not of the common type", then that's a useless definition in this case; equally applicable to ginger hair or any number of other harmless characteristics. And, of course, that the majority are not "entitled" to representation either; they just receive it in abundance.

You also didn't address several of the issues I mentioned (including the misguided idea that the gay rights issue should have ended with decriminalisation).

Yes, it should have ended with decriminalization, as you can't force someone to accept something they don't want to. Active persecution without cause is wrong, but that doesn't mean people have to be forced to accept something. No more than say someone has the right to say "well I'm a fecesphille, that's normal for me, so I have the right to make you watch me make a cleaveland steamer". Other arguments are based on what amounts to interpretive technicalities, which is something we could argue until we're both blue in the face and get nowhere, as this is one of the biggest societal issues going on right now and certainly won't be resolved here. The political aspects of things in many cases revolve around one side or the other trying to promote their side/interpretation as being correct, or at least morally right.

In the wider arena of gay rights, I'd point out I've probably been following it a lot longer than you have due to some personal investment. Decades ago things were a lot more reasonable, the basic defense of gay rights was that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody's business but there own. A lot of the arguments you see now were held by nothing but a radical fringe within the movement. A big part of the arguments made were specifically that "nobody is going to force homosexuality on you, and force you watch two dudes or two girls make out" and that kind of thing was presented as paranoid posturing by the other side. Of course once the battle was won, it didn't stop there, political inertia continued, and now we're actually having an argument about the majority of people being forced to experience/watch something that disgusts them for the sake of a minority. This was my point, and it does admittedly get far afield of the point of this discussion which is why I didn't focus on it, other than to point out that it turns what were allies into enemies. Truthfully if it wasn't for pushing garbage like this so aggressively, simple social inertia probably would have lead to things being a lot more tolerant on their own. People do not like being told that they have to endure things they find unpleasant for the sake of a small group of people.

... and yes, it's special consideration, because your basically saying that you HAVE to put gays into your product and taking away creative freedom for your own benefit. Conversely this is the same as saying material directed at gays with all-gay cast, which does happen, needs to include X amount of heterosexual content. Or saying that a black TV show needs to include white people and can't have an all-black main cast.

At the end of the day my point is that creators have the right to do whatever they want with their own work, just as you have the right to decide if you want to spend money on it. No group is entitled to guaranteed representation or for creators to project a message on their behalf. Especially not fringe groups, no matter how much political pressure they bring to bear. Nobody is required to claim something is abnormal is normal to fit someone else's political agenda, which is why politics entered into this, as the issue revolves around the inherent "message" rather than simple inclusion. A small group of people making an argument that being protected equally under the law means that they are entitled to be represented in private creative works, and creators forced to include them one way or another.

Don't get me wrong, feel free to say you wish there was more gay content if that floats your boat. That's fine, and people have the right to their opinion, however nobody is entitled to mandatory inclusion, and as I pointed out if you make that argument about gays, then you have to say it applies to everyone, including groups much larger than they are, at which point doing anything becomes impossible. Not to mention it's also not representative of the society, like it or not, gays do not exist in equal numbers to straight, and most people who aren't gay find the behavior kind of repugnant (they aren't wired that way) and don't want to see it, even if they don't care about other people doing it on their
own time. As a result it's not surprising that most creators don't do anything with homosexuality even if they have the right to do so if they want to.

Loki_The_Good:

Yeah, umm, wow really? I don't know if you know how DNA works or not but given that a good majority of these other kin identify with fictional man made or conceptual objects it would be impossible for those to impact DNA.

tsk tsk. You'd be a bad scientist, what with making absolute claims about things.

Plus, one can still be born and raised in an environment that shapes them, where they have no control over what is imprinted upon them.

So no, you haven't scientifically written out otherkins as just "pretending", nor did you answer my question about whether or not it would be justified to exclude homosexuality if homosexuality wasn't scientifically demonstrated to be ingrained.

So you have a lot to answer for.

Therumancer:

Yes, it should have ended with decriminalization, as you can't force someone to accept something they don't want to. Active persecution without cause is wrong, but that doesn't mean people have to be forced to accept something. No more than say someone has the right to say "well I'm a fecesphille, that's normal for me, so I have the right to make you watch me make a cleaveland steamer".

Nobody is talking about forcing people to accept anything, or making anybody "watch". That that comes to your mind shows a pretty bizarre paranoia.

It's about an option being included, for chrissakes. Straight people aren't going to be forced to use it, just like they won't be forced to have gay marriages. What utterly ludicrous false equivalence.

The gay rights movement also tackles the violence and persecution gay people face, by the way; the instances of people thrown out of their homes, and the counselling people require when they get disowned. That's what you're ignoring and belittling when you say it should have "ended with decriminalisation". That's what you show a callous disregard for.

Therumancer:

This was my point, and it does admittedly get far afield of the point of this discussion which is why I didn't focus on it, other than to point out that it turns what were allies into enemies. Truthfully if it wasn't for pushing garbage like this so aggressively, simple social inertia probably would have lead to things being a lot more tolerant on their own. People do not like being told that they have to endure things they find unpleasant for the sake of a small group of people.

Good lord. You claim gay people are acting "entitled", and then claim entitlement to not have to even see kinds of people you're prejudiced against. That's a level of entitlement far beyond those you've criticised.

Therumancer:

... and yes, it's special consideration, because your basically saying that you HAVE to put gays into your product and taking away creative freedom for your own benefit. Conversely this is the same as saying material directed at gays with all-gay cast, which does happen, needs to include X amount of heterosexual content. Or saying that a black TV show needs to include white people and can't have an all-black main cast.

...Except nobody tries to force all media to have gay people. That would be another strawman. A game in which personalisation of your own love life is the core design, on the other hand? It has a clear place.

Therumancer:

Don't get me wrong, feel free to say you wish there was more gay content if that floats your boat. That's fine, and people have the right to their opinion, however nobody is entitled to mandatory inclusion, and as I pointed out if you make that argument about gays, then you have to say it applies to everyone, including groups much larger than they are, at which point doing anything becomes impossible. Not to mention it's also not representative of the society, like it or not, gays do not exist in equal numbers to straight, and most people who aren't gay find the behavior kind of repugnant (they aren't wired that way) and don't want to see it, even if they don't care about other people doing it on their
own time. As a result it's not surprising that most creators don't do anything with homosexuality even if they have the right to do so if they want to.

For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed gay people exist in the same numbers as straight people, and nobody ever demanded they be shown in equal numbers in media. How many times must I say this?!

Baseless accusations, repeated ad nauseam.

Please, if you respond, break up the wall-o'-text, and respond point-by-point. And please, if you're going to respond the "equal numbers" thing, provide some actual evidence this time; don't just trot out the same tired old misrepresentation.

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:

Yeah, umm, wow really? I don't know if you know how DNA works or not but given that a good majority of these other kin identify with fictional man made or conceptual objects it would be impossible for those to impact DNA.

tsk tsk. You'd be a bad scientist, what with making absolute claims about things.

Plus, one can still be born and raised in an environment that shapes them, where they have no control over what is imprinted upon them.

So no, you haven't scientifically written out otherkins as just "pretending", nor did you answer my question about whether or not it would be justified to exclude homosexuality if homosexuality wasn't scientifically demonstrated to be ingrained.

So you have a lot to answer for.

Really? That neocartesian bullcrap? So do you walk into every wall because there is an infinitesimally small chance that it might be an illusion or just using it in the typical hypocritical sense of only applying it where it was convenient. Yeah I'm going to stop this here before you start arguing to me the values of making mittens for snakes or whatever else this joke will devolve into. I was really only trying to get you to slip and admit your real aim but the game is getting boring now so have fun.

Loki_The_Good:

Really? That neocartesian bullcrap?

I have no idea what "neocartesian bullcrap" is, thanks to the Wikipedia entry for "neo-cartesian" being hilariously uninformative.

You should improve that article, because you evidently know what "neocartesian" means.

So I don't know what you're accusing me of, other than "bullcrap".

So do you walk into every wall because there is an infinitesimally small chance that it might be an illusion

No.

or just using it in the typical hypocritical sense of only applying it where it was convenient.

Also no.

You're the one making the claim that "otherkins are definitely just pretending and it definitely isn't hard-wired". Your burden of proof is to prove that beyond any doubt.

If you say "X is the only thing that leads to Y" you have to prove that A,B,C,D...W,Z don't lead to Y. If there's even a remote possibility that A leads to Y, then you haven't yet proven your claim that X is the only thing that leads to Y.

It's like claiming that there isn't an invisible, intangible, immoral unicorn in my garage. You'd have no way of proving such a thing.

You've claimed something that you can't prove.

Also, you never answered my question about how this game would be justified or not if it was created during a time where we didn't know where homosexuality came from.

I take it you don't want to answer, since it'll be very damaging to your stance.

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:

Really? That neocartesian bullcrap?

I have no idea what "neocartesian bullcrap" is, thanks to the Wikipedia entry for "neo-cartesian" being hilariously uninformative.

You should improve that article, because you evidently know what "neocartesian" means.

So I don't know what you're accusing me of, other than "bullcrap".

So do you walk into every wall because there is an infinitesimally small chance that it might be an illusion

No.

or just using it in the typical hypocritical sense of only applying it where it was convenient.

Also no.

You're the one making the claim that "otherkins are definitely just pretending and it definitely isn't hard-wired". Your burden of proof is to prove that beyond any doubt.

If you say "X is the only thing that leads to Y" you have to prove that A,B,C,D...W,Z don't lead to Y. If there's even a remote possibility that A leads to Y, then you haven't yet proven your claim that X is the only thing that leads to Y.

It's like claiming that there isn't an invisible, intangible, immoral unicorn in my garage. You'd have no way of proving such a thing.

You've claimed something that you can't prove.

Also, you never answered my question about how this game would be justified or not if it was created during a time where we didn't know where homosexuality came from.

I take it you don't want to answer, since it'll be very damaging to your stance.

Ah I am a glutton for punishment ah well Let's play a little more. Neo cartesian is philosophical theory based off of Descartes writing, Basically in his second meditation he broke down what it was possible for human beings to know the purpose of which was to identify a basic foundation on which to build knowledge ( I think therefore I am). Neo Cartesians started with this line of reasoning but instead of building on it chose to argue that it is impossible for humans to truly know anything the obvious flaw of course is that the statement itself is presented as definitive knowledge thus making it a self negating fallicey. So basically any time someone argues you can't know that for sure they are usually basing it on some variation of neo cartesian reasoning.

As for burden of proof well again that is wrong. See no matter how you phrase your argument the argument is based on two opposing theories in this case fantasy creatures can't impact micro biology and the evolution of the human species versus The opposing view that they can. So in arguments the burden of proof actually falls on the side that runs most counter to what is considered established knowledge. Any ignorance of that basic knowledge and updating it also part of that burden. As they say ignorance is no excuse. So, actually, I'm interested how exactly does one gain unicorn DNA or toaster DNA for that matter. By the way yes it is possible for genetic variances to make one susceptible to believing they are a unicorn but that is not the requirement of reality. Like I said it is symptomatic of a psychological disorder and there are plenty of other delusional disorders that are genetically related but they are treated as such. Homosexuals are gay. They find the same sex attractive thus fitting the definition. Argument wise it goes like this 1. homosexuals are people who find the same sex attractive 2 Bobby and Jake are both men 3 Bobby finds Jake attractive Therefore Bobby is a homosexual. All the rest of the stuff about genetics and pheromones are proof supporting the premise 3 that bobby finds Jake attractive but so long as something supports that condition then Bobby is a homosexual. Simple clean real. The people on tumblr are not unicorns they simply believe that they are they have no Unicorn traits or abilities and no physical connection to said fictional beast. It is a mild delusion or an elaborate mind game to cope with poor self image. The argument goes like this 1 Bobby says he's a Unicorn 2?????????????? Therefore:???????????? There is no supporting evidence of such a claim. For someone so keen on burden of proof you would think you would have noticed that.

Finally, a great tie, good shirt and the tie is even right tied. See Jim, it is so easy.

Silvanus:
[

Baseless accusations, repeated ad nauseam.

Please, if you respond, break up the wall-o'-text, and respond point-by-point. And please, if you're going to respond the "equal numbers" thing, provide some actual evidence this time; don't just trot out the same tired old misrepresentation.

I'd say we're pretty much done. I have addressed every point you have put down, maybe not the way you'd like, but it's been done. Like most such debates it all comes down to people screaming "baseless" and "nobody ever said that" and/or simply dismissing any point they do not like. You are basically trying to deny there is even an issue, and obviously this conversation must not even be happening, and this entire article/video and situation must not exist because well, nobody bothered to make the claims we're discussing, at least as far as your concerned. At the end of the day you will not convince me that anyone is entitled to representation in anything and that creators do not have the right to make what they want and include what they want, period. If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff, it doesn't matter how you dress it up politically, socially, or morally, nobody is entitled to representation in a fictional work.

As I tried to say before, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Perhaps we'll agree on something later.

Therumancer:
I'd say we're pretty much done. I have addressed every point you have put down, maybe not the way you'd like, but it's been done. Like most such debates it all comes down to people screaming "baseless" and "nobody ever said that" and/or simply dismissing any point they do not like. You are basically trying to deny there is even an issue, and obviously this conversation must not even be happening, and this entire article/video and situation must not exist because well, nobody bothered to make the claims we're discussing, at least as far as your concerned. At the end of the day you will not convince me that anyone is entitled to representation in anything and that creators do not have the right to make what they want and include what they want, period. If you don't like it, don't buy their stuff, it doesn't matter how you dress it up politically, socially, or morally, nobody is entitled to representation in a fictional work.

As I tried to say before, we'll have to agree to disagree and move on. Perhaps we'll agree on something later.

If I hadn't had a trying day, I might have returned fire. As it is, I'm also happy to leave it here.

hazydawn:

I admit I still have some research and thinking to do on the matter but If we agree on certain ideals like freedom, equality, justice, the increase of happiness and decrease of pain, etc. there's a number of possible realities for any situation or issue were some of them would be the moral pinnacle.

The problem is, these are the same principles the founding fathers looked at when they decided slavery was okay. They just came up with justifications for why it was okay to enslave one "race" over others.

I mean, I agree with this notion of "good" being the minimisation of suffering and the maximisation of liberty (I'd be more specific in my definitions but I don't think we need to go all theological), but this has been the basis of many a movement that pulled a "no homers" on its compatriots. Now, not everyone thought that, and even the founding fathers decided blacks and women were worth less in part due to compromise, but 18th century America was a place that deeply valued freedom and liberty, and then said "but only for us good, decent, white folk."

There are many reasons they likely rationalised it, but they still rationalised it. And this, I would say, isn't much different then that it is now. In essence, we can argue what's right, but the reality of it is that we will always end up with what's popular. But even if we remove that, there is always a way to rationalise mistreatment of others.

Houseman:

Exactly, so as Tumblr says, "check your privilege".

The "privilege" here being that science knows what you are.

I admit I haven't been following this thread too closely, but are you taking the piss?

I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but one of the more baffling things about this statement is that the otherkin "community" has thus far been completely unwilling to prove themselves to "science," which I guess I'll use as a term of convenience. Homosexuals and transsexuals and left-handers have all been submitted. These other groups instead protest the concept of being tested, and honestly, that makes me a little suspicious of any such claim.

But you said "exactly," and you didn't mean it as it's used. "exactly" would indicate agreement, which would indicate there's no basis for your claims.

There you go.

That doesn't address what I said, either. You said that this was true 100 years ago, indicating it'd be different now or at some point in the future. It won't. That was bundled with my premise.

Studies about what? "conversion therapy camps"? I would think that everybody would know about their existence by now.

Surely you know I'm aware of them for homosexuals, as my next sentence started talking about them. You even quote this next part. One could therefore reasonably infer that I was referring specifically to otherkin or people who think they're toasters. If you're assuming people are aware of that on a wide scale, then you're very likely wrong. I doubt the majority even know what an otherkin, furry, or toastie is.

Some people tried to "cure" homosexuality, and I'm pretty sure it can verifiably be said to have been a dismal failure.

But my point isn't whether they succeeded or failed, it was that they tried, and that they treated it as if it were something to be cured.

I think you meant that it was inconvenient to your point. The scientific method operates on attempting to falsify hypotheses. It's only through testing our ideas that we verify them. One way or another, homosexuality is something that would fall to such tests. You can phrase it as an attempt to "cure" or not, but we were always going down this path.

Loki saying "These people need counseling" is the exact same thing as saying that homsexuals "need counseling", with the implication that it's a disease that can be cured.

Well, no. It's not the exact thing. We know homosexuality cannot be cured. Can you cite me even one study[footnote]Note that one study does not a conclusion make, but it would be a start[/quote] that would indicate the same for "these people?"

What you've offered up is the notion that we can't disprove that they aren't like homosexuals, and that's not where the burden lies.

King Whurdler:
I have a severe distaste for the phrase 'civilized nation,' but a lot of those places that make up the majority are behind the times to say the LEAST.

Howabout "industrial nation?" It carries with it many of the same (relevant) meanings without actually indicating that another nation is somehow inferior.

It's also worth pointing out that argumentum ad populum when it comes to video games probably shouldn't find a factor in countries that don't have a large number of game players, as game companies aren't actually marketing to them. The primary markets are far more gay-friendly. So even if the world was 90% homophobic overall, it wouldn't matter.

Dragonbums:

Of course I'm not okay with it. Any more than knowing that children and women are still burned in this day and age for witchery.

However I'm not going to stomp in there all colonial moral high ground style and proclaim that what they are doing is wrong because we Westerners have stopped doing it.

How is that any different? It reads as "I'm sorry you're being tortured or violated, but I wouldn't want to interfere with your sovereign rights."

Can you actually demonstrate any of this "lasting change?"

Loki_The_Good:

Ah I am a glutton for punishment ah well Let's play a little more. Neo cartesian is philosophical theory based off of Descartes writing, Basically in his second meditation he broke down what it was possible for human beings to know the purpose of which was to identify a basic foundation on which to build knowledge ( I think therefore I am). Neo Cartesians started with this line of reasoning but instead of building on it chose to argue that it is impossible for humans to truly know anything the obvious flaw of course is that the statement itself is presented as definitive knowledge thus making it a self negating fallicey. So basically any time someone argues you can't know that for sure they are usually basing it on some variation of neo cartesian reasoning.

Thanks.

But for the record, I don't think I'm doing that.

I'm merely saying that any possibility that you could be wrong is sufficient to demonstrate that your claim of "X is absolutely Y" is not necessarily true. And this possibility isn't merely "But you could be wrong", or "What about something none of us has ever thought of?", as those on their own would just be silly.

As for burden of proof well again that is wrong. See no matter how you phrase your argument the argument is based on two opposing theories in this case fantasy creatures can't impact micro biology and the evolution of the human species versus The opposing view that they can. So in arguments the burden of proof actually falls on the side that runs most counter to what is considered established knowledge.

But I never made any claim.

You're the one who said "All they are doing is projecting a bunch of traits onto an idea they want to identify with." back on page 8. I merely said "What about otherkin?" I didn't say "Otherkin are born to believe that they're [insert thing here]."

The people on tumblr are not unicorns they simply believe that they are they have no Unicorn traits or abilities and no physical connection to said fictional beast.

See? Those are claims. Those claims carry burdens of proof.

Zachary Amaranth:

I admit I haven't been following this thread too closely, but are you taking the piss?

If you mean playing devil's advocate, yes.

That doesn't address what I said, either. You said that this was true 100 years ago, indicating it'd be different now or at some point in the future. It won't.

Do you have a time machine?

Here's the thing. Going forward, can you really expect to be a successful international company if you do not take note of and respect other cultures? This game in particular, as I see it, was not marketed as a comical parody on *Japanese* life. It was just a comical parody. And while Nintendo is very, very Japanese, it tries to present itself as simple, fun and lighthearted to all. But not all lighthearted things in the US are lighthearted in Russia. Being neutral is hard. If anything can be learned here, it's that any international company that would try to avoid bad PR must be aware of the markets they sell to, year to year. Perhaps they should have a person or team dedicated to keeping track of where the hot social buttons in each country are, and how/if they can avoid them in a cost-efficient way. Or perhaps such existing teams need a wake-up call. Maybe Nintendo could make a simple note on the packaging informing the consumer that a game is ported to, but not made for, US (etc.) audiences. Perhaps include a link to a page that warns the user of all that can include. Or, tiresomly, perhaps we will have to keep yelling and hope we are understood. We *do* do that for free, after all. And rather well, if a bit too enthusiasticly.

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:

Ah I am a glutton for punishment ah well Let's play a little more. Neo cartesian is philosophical theory based off of Descartes writing, Basically in his second meditation he broke down what it was possible for human beings to know the purpose of which was to identify a basic foundation on which to build knowledge ( I think therefore I am). Neo Cartesians started with this line of reasoning but instead of building on it chose to argue that it is impossible for humans to truly know anything the obvious flaw of course is that the statement itself is presented as definitive knowledge thus making it a self negating fallicey. So basically any time someone argues you can't know that for sure they are usually basing it on some variation of neo cartesian reasoning.

Thanks.

But for the record, I don't think I'm doing that.

I'm merely saying that any possibility that you could be wrong is sufficient to demonstrate that your claim of "X is absolutely Y" is not necessarily true. And this possibility isn't merely "But you could be wrong", or "What about something none of us has ever thought of?", as those on their own would just be silly.

As for burden of proof well again that is wrong. See no matter how you phrase your argument the argument is based on two opposing theories in this case fantasy creatures can't impact micro biology and the evolution of the human species versus The opposing view that they can. So in arguments the burden of proof actually falls on the side that runs most counter to what is considered established knowledge.

But I never made any claim.

You're the one who said "All they are doing is projecting a bunch of traits onto an idea they want to identify with." back on page 8. I merely said "What about otherkin?" I didn't say "Otherkin are born to believe that they're [insert thing here]."

The people on tumblr are not unicorns they simply believe that they are they have no Unicorn traits or abilities and no physical connection to said fictional beast.

See? Those are claims. Those claims carry burdens of proof.

Unfortunately whether you explicitly say it or not really doesn't matter. So long as you are arguing against what I'm saying you must take or at least find support for the position that at least casts a reasonable amount of doubt on the status quo. Again since I'm arguing from the position of accepted knowledge which is easy to tell as as any definition of fictional or unicorn will attest. Again the burden of proof is on your end you must show that there is reason to doubt the established line and sorry reason to doubt requires a likelihood higher then the chance of winning a lottery ticket. Yes there is a burden of proof but it is on there end. They must prove that they are indeed a unicorn should they wish to be treated as one not the other way around.

As for The whole what about otherkin nonsense. I'm not a court of law. I don't hold to technically didn't say or any such crap like that. Implicit insinuations can be addressed. You also said

Houseman:

You're saying that you can't be a toaster? But the folks at tumblr say otherwise... Who are you to dismiss how they feel they are born to be?

It wasn't too long ago that people thought that being gay was just a conscious, sinful, choice that people made. Who's to say in 100 years we won't recognize that people can be born a pony? It just seems like hypocrisy to me. Your treatment of otherkin is comparable to the discrimination homosexuals used to face until recently.

You imply here that homosexuality and otherkin are inherently similar and should both be treated as civil rights issues. This implies that Otherkin meets the same requirements of protection that homosexuality has met in order to equate the two.

Houseman:

There are no genetic markers for wanting to be a cucumber. It's a semi-delusion brought on by poor self image.

We said the same thing a century ago about homosexuality. Hmm. Hmm, I say.

The above argues that there are genetic markers in humans to want to be a cucumber which is by the way exactly what you said you did not argue. You might want to go back through what you've actually said I could go on.

Loki_The_Good:

Unfortunately whether you explicitly say it or not really doesn't matter. So long as you are arguing against what I'm saying you must take or at least find support for the position that at least casts a reasonable amount of doubt on the status quo.

That would be an argument from ignorance. Just because I do not explicitly agree with you does not mean that I explicitly or implicitly agree with you.

I'm not even arguing "against" what you're saying. I'm simply asking questions.

Again since I'm arguing from the position of accepted knowledge which is easy to tell as as any definition of fictional or unicorn will attest. Again the burden of proof is on your end

I'm not arguing anything. I'm only asking questions.

You imply here that homosexuality and otherkin are inherently similar

I said that your treatment to otherkin today is similar to how homosexuals were treated a century or two ago. Do you deny this?

The above argues that there are genetic markers in humans to want to be a cucumber

No. The above argues that "We said the same thing a century ago about homosexuality".

See that? "WE SAID..."?

How does "We used to say that there are no genetic markers for wanting to be a homosexual" sound similar to "THERE ARE GENETIC MARKERS IN HUMANS TO WANT TO BE A CUCUMBER?" Please tell me how you made this connection.

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:

Unfortunately whether you explicitly say it or not really doesn't matter. So long as you are arguing against what I'm saying you must take or at least find support for the position that at least casts a reasonable amount of doubt on the status quo.

That would be an argument from ignorance. Just because I do not explicitly agree with you does not mean that I explicitly or implicitly agree with you.

I'm not even arguing "against" what you're saying. I'm simply asking questions.

Again since I'm arguing from the position of accepted knowledge which is easy to tell as as any definition of fictional or unicorn will attest. Again the burden of proof is on your end

I'm not arguing anything. I'm only asking questions.

You imply here that homosexuality and otherkin are inherently similar

I said that your treatment to otherkin today is similar to how homosexuals were treated a century or two ago. Do you deny this?

The above argues that there are genetic markers in humans to want to be a cucumber

No. The above argues that "We said the same thing a century ago about homosexuality".

See that? "WE SAID..."?

How does "We used to say that there are no genetic markers for wanting to be a homosexual" sound similar to "THERE ARE GENETIC MARKERS IN HUMANS TO WANT TO BE A CUCUMBER?" Please tell me how you made this connection.

Yeah no again I'm not a law court. I mean really your going to go Bill O'reilly on this. I'm not even going to pretend that's a legitimate avenue. Try again when you haven't run out of ideas.

josh4president:
So how long until someone throws up the whole 'danger of inclusion' argument like what happened with Mass Effect?

"If we allow the Gay Tomadachis, then we have to allow PEDOPHILE Tomadachis as well!" or what not?

Reminds me how Persona 3 Portable has no gay options, but has a shota-con option for the female.

Loki_The_Good:

Yeah no again I'm not a law court.

And this should mean what, exactly, to me?

That you can make all the fallacies you want, and you shouldn't be called out on them?

Houseman:

Loki_The_Good:

Yeah no again I'm not a law court.

And this should mean what, exactly, to me?

That you can make all the fallacies you want, and you shouldn't be called out on them?

Look no one else is reading this so this really isn't fooling anyone. Maybe if you didn't actually use the phrase that was laughed into oblivion 5 or 6 years ago. Just asking questions. lol gotta admire the balls on that. Well looks like I got everything I want out of this conversation. Good to end it on a laugh I think.

Loki_The_Good:

Look no one else is reading this so this really isn't fooling anyone.

What isn't fooling anyone?

Maybe if you didn't actually use the phrase that was laughed into oblivion 5 or 6 years ago.

What phrase?

Thank God for Jim.

No one should be obligated to put homosexual people into any old game. Developers should be able to make the games that they want for the people who want to play them. But it does change when you have a game about relationships, and a significant number of people's relationships aren't an option in your game. Imagine what the reaction would be if mixed raced couples couldn't marry in the game.

Would the reaction be people saying the same things they are now in this thread? Would we be comparing having black people in your game to catering to the west in JRPG's? Would we be talking about how a small minority shouldn't expect any sort of representation if they don't do it themselves?

I don't think we would. Why not? Because we understand that when it comes to people of other races and ethnicities, we should treat everyone equally and at least acknowledge that they exist.

A better analogy than limiting players to all-white characters: "As we don't want to get involved in racial politics, we've removed the ability for characters of different races to marry."

I always saw Nintendo as the Disney of video games; a company that totes itself as family-friendly and all-inclusive, while simultaneously trying not to piss anyone off by trying to include EVERYONE. Disney is well aware of is gay fanbase, and is one of the most gay-friendly companies in America, yet seems insistent on not taking a stance on gay rights, if only not to lose the anti-gay groups. Say what you want about anti-gay jerks or whatever, the fact that Disney is THAT considerate of both groups is commendable. Thus, while I don't know if Nintendo has a similar stance on gay people, I wouldn't be surprised if that WAS the case, since they openly apologized for not including gay marriage in Tomodachi Life. It's a misstep in terms of progress, but I can't really be THAT mad a Nintendo for it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here