Maria Caliban Posted June 5, 2004 Author Posted June 5, 2004 Defining words is not in Spellmar's directive. Maybe we need to make a Dictionary buddy? Or Spellmarary? Anyways... NOUN: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. ETYMOLOGY: French, from Old French. WORD HISTORY: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "When is this out. I can't wait to play it so I can talk at length about how bad it is." - Gorgon.
Craftsman Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 You call me that for your own self security? I think so.
jaguars4ever Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 To a certain degree, all experiences are universal because there are only a finite number of human emotions and sensations. Wrong. The number of human emotions one can simultaneously experience is non-mutually exclusive. In addition, the degree of severity one can experience each emotion is a continuous variable, not discrete.
Gorth Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Since when is 'human' the only POV avalible? Don't even start in that direction... :ph34r: *cough*goat*cougn*romance*coungh*... “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Maria Caliban Posted June 5, 2004 Author Posted June 5, 2004 Craftman: "You call me that for your own self security? I think so. " I never called you a bigot, actually. But, yes, it seems as though you are one. As for my self-security, I would feel more secure if people tried to tolerate differences in this world. The US is in the middle of a war caused by people feeling threatened by different cultures. "Since when is 'human' the only POV available? " Because I am only human and I can communicate reliably with only humans. Try as it might, my cat can only tell me so much about its experiences and I lack the psychical ability to, say, see all the colors she can. Jaguars Forever, Do you disagree with all experiences being universal or there only being a finite number of emotions and sensations? While I can appreciate an argument against the first assertion, I see humans as being biologically limited in their ability to perceive sensation and emotions. There's only so much information the human brain can process, so much human senses can perceive, and only so many chemical interactions that produce emotions. "When is this out. I can't wait to play it so I can talk at length about how bad it is." - Gorgon.
jaguars4ever Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Jaguars Forever, Do you disagree with all experiences being universal or there only being a finite number of emotions and sensations? While I can appreciate an argument against the first assertion, I see humans as being biologically limited in their ability to perceive sensation and emotions. There's only so much information the human brain can process, so much human senses can perceive, and only so many chemical interactions that produce emotions. Read my post on the last page. I explained it.
Sorgoth Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Well after reading this thread, I think this is the last thing the game needs. I'm all for gay rights etc, but I dont think a game is the right place to explore this subject or educate people about homosexuality. Not yet anyway.
Gorth Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Well after reading this thread, I think this is the last thing the game needs. I'm all for gay rights etc, but I dont think a game is the right place to explore this subject or educate people about homosexuality. Not yet anyway. Which is a shame really... Part of the fun of crpgs is exactly that, doing things you can't or won't do in real life. Whether it being exploring alternate sexuality, robbing all the villagers homes of all their possessions or just throwing a plasma grenade into a crowd in the hope of hitting your favourite villain in the blast... It's all about eploring alternatives. Otherwise you might as well take a walk in the park and study life. B) “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Maria Caliban Posted June 5, 2004 Author Posted June 5, 2004 I haven't suggested that the game do either, Sorgoth. Jaguars Forever, Emotions aren't mutually exclusive but you can only release so many chemicals into the bloodstream before one dominates, the system goes into shock, or the brain is unable to perceive any changes. You can't name an emotion that no adult has experienced and whatever blend of emotion you have, people will have experienced it as well. As to the degree of severity, there's only a certain point that the mind can reach. Heroin addiction is a perfect example of this. You never fly as high as you do your first time because your body will force you to 'normalize' your emotion. Most heroin addicts are forced to inject merely to reach an emotional state we call normal because your brain will stop the flow of serotonin if it become too high. Likewise, if it slips too low you get things like alcohol and sugar addictions as the brain forces the body stimulate the release of dopamine. "When is this out. I can't wait to play it so I can talk at length about how bad it is." - Gorgon.
Dead Skin Mask Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Ok I have read through this thread and would like to add my two cents. First off Candyman didn't come off as being gay to me. Not that there is a problem with being gay in any way. Also I agree gay romances should be in the game if there is a demand for it. From a marketing point of view a company should try to satisfy all their customers reasonable demands and gay romances is a reasonable demand for a role playing game. I see no reason why anybody would be uncomforable with gay romances in the game because you are not required to play through them if you don't desire to. I don't think it's fair to have the straight romances without having alternative romances for gay and lesbian people. I'm peronally straight but I am sick of people being so intolerant of others who don't share their views on what is appropriate pertaining to the issue of love. Now to be honest I wouldn't blame Obsidian for the fact that there won't be gay romances in KOTOR 2 because Lucas Arts would never allow that to happen in a Star Wars game. Thats just my own personal views I will now go into Ninja mode to avoid this flame war. :ph34r: Cheers!
jaguars4ever Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Jaguars Forever, Emotions aren't mutually exclusive Glad that you agree with me there. As for 'severity', I believe you are misunderstanding me Maria. You are stating the upper limit of tolerance for the brain. That is not what I am referring to. I am disputing: - "To a certain degree, all experiences are universal because there are only a finite number of human emotions and sensations. " E.g Within the limits of experimental error, a hypothetical ammount of chemical fluid secreted could measure 178
nightcleaver Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 ...assuming "emotional intensity" could fundamentally be measured just by a single secretion, or that anyone would have a clue for what was what without being able to measure every single possible detail.
Craftsman Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Ok I have read through this thread and would like to add my two cents. First off Candyman didn't come off as being gay to me. Not that there is a problem with being gay in any way. Also I agree gay romances should be in the game if there is a demand for it. From a marketing point of view a company should try to satisfy all their customers reasonable demands and gay romances is a reasonable demand for a role playing game. I see no reason why anybody would be uncomforable with gay romances in the game because you are not required to play through them if you don't desire to. I don't think it's fair to have the straight romances without having alternative romances for gay and lesbian people. I'm peronally straight but I am sick of people being so intolerant of others who don't share their views on what is appropriate pertaining to the issue of love. Now to be honest I wouldn't blame Obsidian for the fact that there won't be gay romances in KOTOR 2 because Lucas Arts would never allow that to happen in a Star Wars game. Thats just my own personal views I will now go into Ninja mode to avoid this flame war. :ph34r: Cheers! Im gay?! Dude dont ever scare me like that again
nightcleaver Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Nightclever:"To be honest, I am a little taken aback by it when I hear about other people's sex lives, especially when it's something I don't understand." I'm rarely taken back and I haven't met a sexual peccadillo yet that I didn't understand. Men, women, dogs, furniture, leather, stuffed animals, or sensory deprivation, desire is desire. I might not have the same response but that's beside the question. My stepfather likes his steak well done and I like mine rare but I still understand why he likes it that way. People love beer and coffee, two substances that taste horrid to me, but I still understand why they drink them. "Please, PLEASE don't call me prejudiced - I'm probably one of the more volatilly-inclined gay rights defenders I've known of. " You can defend gay rights and still be prejudiced. I know an openly gay man who's prejudiced against gay men. One really has little to do with the other. "Still, I don't want to think of other peoples sex lives, and I see in no way how that's wrong." That's not germane to the earlier topic; I don't think anyone is advocating having a character go into detail about their sexual experiences. Now, if you're saying that just knowing someone's sexuality bothers you then I feel for you but I don't think it's fair to suggest people keep that information to themselves. I mean, even a wedding ring gives it away. " I find that you're lying to yourself, when you place yourself in a hypothetical position that you have no personal experience with." To a certain degree, all experiences are universal because there are only a finite number of human emotions and sensations. I might not know what it is to lose my mother but I can hazard a guess. I don't know what it is to skydive but I've been in a car accident (intense adrenaline rush) and I've ridden a roller-coaster (euphoria caused by fearful but controlled situation). If I mix that with the physical sensation of cool wind whipping my face and dropping then I have a good idea of what it feel like. Not perfect, but good. As long as I don't try to convince myself that it's *exactly* what it feels like then I'm not lying to myself. I knew you would take it like that. Oh well. Ok, sure, it doesn't mean a damned thing that I defend gays - but was that gay man friend a gay rights defender? Come on. I'm going to get angry here - just to warn you. In response to, That's not germane to the earlier topic; I don't think anyone is advocating having a character go into detail about their sexual experiences. Now, if you're saying that just knowing someone's sexuality bothers you then I feel for you but I don't think it's fair to suggest people keep that information to themselves. I mean, even a wedding ring gives it away. I think it's called, "clarifying your position." Got it? I would think it weren't necessary except for the other things you said in response to my post. People want gay romances, go for it for god's sake. I'm just trying to get some middle ground here, and all you can think of to do is classify me as "one of them." " I find that you're lying to yourself, when you place yourself in a hypothetical position that you have no personal experience with." To a certain degree, all experiences are universal because there are only a finite number of human emotions and sensations. I might not know what it is to lose my mother but I can hazard a guess. I don't know what it is to skydive but I've been in a car accident (intense adrenaline rush) and I've ridden a roller-coaster (euphoria caused by fearful but controlled situation). If I mix that with the physical sensation of cool wind whipping my face and dropping then I have a good idea of what it feel like. Not perfect, but good. As long as I don't try to convince myself that it's *exactly* what it feels like then I'm not lying to myself. You're not responding to what I meant, here. I KNOW you can "hazard a guess". I said things that I didn't understand in the more direct manner of the word. Is it ok to not want to think of gay men or women having sex? That's most certainly not prejudice, yet that's all I was talking about. I put the example of that Usula K. LEguin book for a REASON. I find their relationship sweet; I loved the book. I don't think the book was objectionable, but I do admit there was a level of uncomfortableness there, especially at first; I WASN'T USED TO IT. Yes, I can understand it; that's why I could find it sweet. Now, I'll repeat that paragraph for good measure: You're not responding to what I meant, here. I KNOW you can "hazard a guess". I said things that I didn't understand in the more direct manner of the word. Is it ok to not want to think of gay men or women having sex? That's most certainly not prejudice. I put the example of that Usula K. LEguin book for a REASON. I find their relationship sweet; I loved the book. I don't think the book was objectionable, but I do admit there was a level of uncomfortableness there, especially at first; I WASN'T USED TO IT. Yes, I can understand it; that's why I could find it sweet.
jaguars4ever Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 The funny thing is that there are like 3 separate discussions going on in this same thread. ^_^
nightcleaver Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Since when is 'human' the only POV avalible? Well, now I'm going into philosophical belief just for the hell of it. Human is the only POV we can see from, we being human. Even god, if that's your issue here, would have to use our understanding as a medium. We can't understand more than we can see, from our human, emotional, hormone-secreting bodies. Also, our bodies are all part of one system, and our brain is part of that system. The only separation possible is the separation "invented" in our brains.
Dead Skin Mask Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Ok I have read through this thread and would like to add my two cents.
Weiser_Cain Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 You know Koolaid is unnatural but it's still pretty good... Yaw devs, Yaw!!! (
jaguars4ever Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Sorry looked like craftsman. If you feel the necesssity to apologize for your Freudian slip, I won't stop you. :D
Dead Skin Mask Posted June 5, 2004 Posted June 5, 2004 Sorry looked like craftsman. Something very Freudian going on there. Edit: Ha! I was beaten to that one. Cheers!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now