panther
Junior Member
Made out of spoons
Posts: 52
|
Post by panther on Nov 27, 2013 6:49:46 GMT
This is one of the most argument-prone threads I've ever seen on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 6:50:40 GMT
This is one of the most argument-prone threads I've ever seen on this forum. No it's not! |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58 
|
Post by Momo on Nov 27, 2013 6:51:08 GMT
This is one of the most argument-prone threads I've ever seen on this forum. No it's not! NO YOU ARE. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 6:51:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 27, 2013 6:51:45 GMT
Yes, I would. An agenda of tolerance and understanding and anti-racism OH GOD THE HORROR THE HORROR. Thank you for confirming exactly what I thought about your motivations. I can't even be offended this is just too absurd. FYI: the fact that racism was more prevalent in the 1950s does not make being racist in the 1950s somehow OK. Just as happened on Reddit, I've been accused of being homophobic. Brilliant. I just want realistic demographics. Being pro-gay doesn't mean you have to make half of your main characters gay, because guess what? I'm not pro-gay or pro-straight. I just want realism. Jesus Christ, you people. It's a story about GHOSTS and ROBOTS and SHADOW PEOPLE and COYOTE GODS and PSYCHICS and IMMORTAL WOMEN and FOX DEMONS and FAIRIES and you're complaining about there being a higher-than-average amount of gay people? |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Nov 27, 2013 6:51:59 GMT
Now, all that said, I say we get back to the only truly important discussion: RPGs. Friends of mine are doing (pretty modified) Kingmaker. I listen in (they play over Skype) and all kinds of fun things happen. Comedy dice, Puck getting involved in a character's reincarnation and turning her into a tree-like being (not an Ent) that's about to have thousands of kids. Bosses dying faster than their minions. Fun times. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 27, 2013 6:52:28 GMT
This is one of the most argument-prone threads I've ever seen on this forum. No it's not! Yes it is.  |
|
panther
Junior Member
Made out of spoons
Posts: 52
|
Post by panther on Nov 27, 2013 6:54:01 GMT
No it's no- Wait a minute... |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Nov 27, 2013 6:54:10 GMT
It's the fact that an unrealistic abundance of gay characters are central to the storyline that makes it obviously pushing an agenda, and it's the agenda-pushing that I have beef with. If I wanted agendas pushed on me I'd go read /r/politics or watch Fox News. This argument is wholly absurd to the point of ridiculousness. If I live in an area where 10% of the population is black, am I only allowed to have one black friend for every nine whites? Demographics are not evenly distributed, period. One group of friends in the Court might be 50% gay, another 0%. Neither is more realistic than other, but I suspect that if the cast was 100% straight, you wouldn't go on the barricades demanding a token homosexual. And that in turn makes your argument as hypocritical as it is absurd. You might just as well read a pro-Pagan religious agenda into the comic because all the supernatural creatures come from polytheistic pantheons. |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Nov 27, 2013 6:55:05 GMT
Yes it is.  "Yes, but I came here for an argument!!" "OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!" ETA: It's a story about GHOSTS and ROBOTS and SHADOW PEOPLE and COYOTE GODS and PSYCHICS and IMMORTAL WOMEN and FOX DEMONS and FAIRIES and you're complaining about there being a higher-than-average amount of gay people? I read this in the best voice and cackled. Thanks for that. =) |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 6:55:45 GMT
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type makes me PUKE! You vacuous stuffy-nosed MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 6:57:59 GMT
It's the fact that an unrealistic abundance of gay characters are central to the storyline that makes it obviously pushing an agenda, and it's the agenda-pushing that I have beef with. If I wanted agendas pushed on me I'd go read /r/politics or watch Fox News. This argument is wholly absurd to the point of ridiculousness. If I live in an area where 10% of the population is black, am I only allowed to have one black friend for every nine whites? Demographics are not evenly distributed, period. One group of friends in the Court might be 50% gay, another 0%. Neither is more realistic than other, but I suspect that if the cast was 100% straight, you wouldn't go on the barricades demanding a token homosexual. And that in turn makes your argument as hypocritical as it is absurd. You might just as well read a pro-Pagan religious agenda into the comic because all the supernatural creatures come from polytheistic pantheons. top lel i already answered everything you've said go back to like page seven and read through |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 6:58:28 GMT
It's the fact that an unrealistic abundance of gay characters are central to the storyline that makes it obviously pushing an agenda, and it's the agenda-pushing that I have beef with. If I wanted agendas pushed on me I'd go read /r/politics or watch Fox News. This argument is wholly absurd to the point of ridiculousness. If I live in an area where 10% of the population is black, am I only allowed to have one black friend for every nine whites? Demographics are not evenly distributed, period. One group of friends in the Court might be 50% gay, another 0%. Neither is more realistic than other, but I suspect that if the cast was 100% straight, you wouldn't go on the barricades demanding a token homosexual. And that in turn makes your argument as hypocritical as it is absurd. You might just as well read a pro-Pagan religious agenda into the comic because all the supernatural creatures come from polytheistic pantheons. gosh golly pls b nice |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on Nov 27, 2013 6:59:32 GMT
Bosses dying faster than their minions. They should have made a hero-proof vest by strapping minions to themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 27, 2013 7:01:51 GMT
top lel i already answered everything you've said go back to like page seven and read through Did you just double-post in response to the same post? |
|
|
|
Post by spritznar on Nov 27, 2013 7:02:53 GMT
top lel i already answered everything you've said go back to like page seven and read through you're arguments are getting so tired they're not even fun to pick apart anymore. give me something i can sink my teeth into |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 7:03:04 GMT
top lel i already answered everything you've said go back to like page seven and read through Did you just double-post in response to the same post? no |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 27, 2013 7:03:20 GMT
Now, all that said, I say we get back to the only truly important discussion: RPGs. Friends of mine are doing (pretty modified) Kingmaker. I listen in (they play over Skype) and all kinds of fun things happen. Comedy dice, Puck getting involved in a character's reincarnation and turning her into a tree-like being (not an Ent) that's about to have thousands of kids. Bosses dying faster than their minions. Fun times. I'm playing a Pathfinder campaign right now that a DM friend of mine wrote. Our party currently consists of the the queen's half-orc illegitimate love child, his dwarf cleric bodyguard, and the halfling rogue/half-elf ranger bounty hunter duo (GF and myself) who started off the campaign with a horribly botched attempt to kidnap him. Aside from the magical panty incident, a few sessions ago we got the NPC hiring us ridiculously drunk and got her to pay us our "upfront fee" four times. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 27, 2013 7:04:35 GMT
Did you just double-post in response to the same post? no Yeah |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Nov 27, 2013 7:04:47 GMT
Did you just double-post in response to the same post? no Right |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 7:05:41 GMT
|
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 27, 2013 7:05:58 GMT
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type makes me PUKE! You vacuous stuffy-nosed MALODOROUS PERVERT!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sapientcoffee on Nov 27, 2013 7:07:29 GMT
I'm playing a Pathfinder campaign right now that a DM friend of mine wrote. Our party currently consists of the the queen' half-orc illegitimate love child, his dwarf cleric bodyguard, and the halfling rogue/half-elf ranger bounty hunter duo (GF and myself) who started off the campaign with a horribly botched attempt to kidnap him. Aside from the magical panty incident, a few sessions ago we got the NPC hiring us ridiculously drunk and got her to pay us our "upfront fee" four times.  |
|
|
|
Post by Covalent on Nov 27, 2013 7:08:09 GMT
皆さんが黙れたほうがいいと思いますよ。争いが多すぎます。
言語ノート：ＧｏｏｇｌｅＴｒａｎｓｌａｔｅを使ったら、英訳が間違います。悪いですから。
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 7:24:41 GMT
Admittedly I may be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure sexuality - be it hetero, homo, bi, or otherwise - is a state of being and/or preference, not something you actually do. I don't go out and heterosexual on all the fine ladies every Friday night*. If you said the ocean is blue-green and I responded that you're incorrect to say that it's blue, would that be an intelligent response from me? I was explicitly talking about what people actually do. Which fact I have emphasized repeatedly. I agree; fortunately nobody made any such suggestion until you brought it up. However, sexuality does have to be acted on - in some fashion - to be *seen*. And it's what other people see you (generic you) do, not what's going on inside your head, that affects what they think. |
|
|
|
Post by Gotolei on Nov 27, 2013 7:45:29 GMT
Ten pages in two days 0_o Personally I'm not much of a shipper (and markedly less enthusiastic about this stuff than most from what I've seen), but if someone happens to like another of the same gender, what difference does it really make? I'm still reading GKC for the overarching plot, and I don't have much of an opinion on this.. but the character development is nice, even if it's a bit deviant from generally-accepted social norms. Heck, what is "normal" in a strange world like the Gunnerverse, or the real one for that matter  Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type makes me PUKE! You vacuous stuffy-nosed MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Nov 27, 2013 8:10:47 GMT
Now, all that said, I say we get back to the only truly important discussion: RPGs. In early table top rpg a lot of DMs and players were rules fanatics and character mortality was a big problem. Running away didn't always work even if you dropped treasure or food. So they had a paragraph in tsr that got dropped in 2.0 about how a player character could surrender and maybe escape or be rescued later. It went something to the effect of how a witch would cast a charm spell to enslave a hero, a dragon would chain up a maiden (how does it know?) and so forth. Full text is probably online somewhere. Charisma was mentioned as a factor but gender was not and some unprincipled early game masters were shall we say forcing their preferences down players throats by npc proxy if you catch my drift. And there were very few gamer gurls back in those days. Apparently one particularly curious DM reversed the intent of the "and so forth" clause and had it apply to certain alignments who were inclined to torture prisoners, regardless of race class creed or species or the player's desires in the matter and was docking EXP for playing out of character. In fact the creepy DM in question probably sent the Headband of +5 Straightness as a rules abuse to the sub-con in hopes of getting a preliminary injunction against it so he could BAN it from his game in advance of 2.0 coming out or something but there was no way to prove that. [edit] Looks like everyone missed the subtle point I was trying to make. But that's the secret origin of the Headband of +5 Straightness and why it's an object suitable for meditation for this thread.[/edit] |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 8:32:14 GMT
I don't think you're condemning anything, Well thank you for that... And I disagree because I don't think I used the term "bisexual". I think I used the term "actively bisexual". You even acknowledge that I'm using it as a distinct term. It's like I said that the Pacific Ocean is on the western coast of North America, and people are picking up on the word "Ocean" but ignoring "Pacific" and pointing out how the Indian Ocean and Atlantic Ocean prove I'm wrong. "Actively polyamorous", to me, says that the person has two (or more) sexual relationships concurrently, or possibly one sexual relationship with two (or more) other people. But ending one monogamous relationship before starting the next doesn't qualify, and I didn't intend to exclude such behavior. So it doesn't say what I want. It also fails to say anything about the sex of the other people. I intended to say something on that issue. So again it doesn't say what I want. "Actively bisexual", on the other hand, could include a series of non-overlapping sexual relationships (while not excluding concurrent or group relationships). And it does specify that the partners the person is directly and sexually attracted to are of mixed sex. On both of these points, it is what I intended. But if you're (generic "you") only attracted to one person, that person has only one sex (certain unusual birth abnormalities excluded). So you aren't bisexual. Being bisexual automatically means you are attracted to at least two people. "Bisexual" is indeed an indicator of the number, as well as the type, of the people you're attracted to. And "actively bisexual" isn't about whom you are simply attracted to. Just being attracted isn't active. It's about your acting upon that attraction, creating evidence that other people can see, recognize, and draw (possibly erroneous) conclusions from. Only show attraction to people of your own gender, and the world will think you're homosexual and your behavior will contribute to their conclusions about homosexuals - even if you're bisexual. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Nov 27, 2013 8:39:59 GMT
4 pages overnight?
oh for goodness sake.
If you're going for a central cast of 10-12 people then statistically there wouldn't be anyone for Kat to have a relationship with in the first place.
I think you're confusing your statistics, a random small sample of a population does not equal the population. Indeed, that is the foundation of most basic statistical tests out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 27, 2013 8:42:31 GMT
Gunnerkrigg Court gathers people from everywhere, and it wouldn't make any sense for one group to be preferred. Not homophobic, I just want a realistic representation of people. Genes individually work in strange ways, and their interactions are even stranger. It's entirely plausible that the sort of people Gunnerkrigg Court wants are disproportionately homosexual. Although I'll protest classifying Robot as homosexual, because he has no sex. If he feels any sexual attraction at all, other than to another robot (and he doesn't seem to like associating with them at all), it's heterosexual. (Shadow, on the other hand, potentially could be sexually attracted to Robot's male-seeming persona, which would qualify as homosexual. So then how would one categorize the relationship? My answer would be: Don't. On the other hand, I've seen no reason to think that there's a *sexual* attraction in either direction there.) |
|
