Kanami

Wasn't going to respond, but this one was just too good to pass up.If women have sex to "feel good" they need to appeal to the opponent first? Though there are alternatives that don't involve a human partner...... that's another thing completely XD Just out of curiosity are you some sort of muslim supporter? (nothing wrong with it, just wondering) since the who ordeal regarding not using physical appearance to get attention/sex sounds like the "why women should wear burka" argument. And your other comments point towards skimpy clothing as girls "asking for it" :/

When a woman uses her body as a means to an end, she's pretty much trying to appease the people in power for a scrap of it. That's pretty narrowminded of you, this is essentially saying if a woman and mans relationship result in sex. First off, it has gotten through to developers and there are good examples of how games should handle these issues. Some developers, some disagree and have left the whole issue untouched. And I don't see any difference is sales when comparing those that have, and those that haven't. Either way it doesn't warrant complaint. It's more a preference then anything else. Secondly, "Blackie"? Really? How many black people do you actually talk to? I'm not going to list the names of real people :/ And fyi "black" is socially acceptable; so is African American, because African Americans are part African in that they're genetically of African extent. It's not socially acceptable to some? So white Americans would be what? Italian American? British American? Actually lets white Americans Europeans instead! <_< See, it's alienating to people when they come out and say "yeah, I'm a feminist/gay/intersexed, what have you" and you question whether they're actually gamers. Yes, games are capable of being universally enjoyed. It's irrelevant that what minority they belong to. The fact is, feminism and games are two separate (linked but separate) issues. Feminism deals with living human people. Games are not living or human. Peggy McIntosh is actually pretty creditable, I'm sorry to say. She's a feminist and a "professor commenting on her area of study". And I she also doesn't seem to be making any comments to support your claims.... so? Lol the story for FF13 was pretty terrible so it's great that you used this as an example. Uh, your whole "Blackie" crap a few sentences back leads me to believe you're not really exposed to enough minorities to witness an existing outcry, so I'm honestly not that surprised. Nitpicking again huh, can you actually address the question instead of acting high and mighty? The question did not relate to the quality of the story either. Sex scenes in movies usually serve a more emotional purpose as well as to sexually appeal to the audience. They're associating with the characters, not the tits and dicks as objects. Sexuality isn't bad, but objectification is problematic. Sex in games can serve an emotional purpose as well? Why does sex need to be connected to "tits and dicks"? If games aren't a medium for writing, then why are there writers for games? Books "put you in the character's shoes" too; there are several differences between the mediums, but that's a laughably simplistic way to look at it. Laughably simplistic from you is ironic, even in that comment writers for games=equal medium? You're joking right? ... probably not. In a novel the writer has absolute control of all elements. Whereas in games the player is often expected to control the character. The mere fact that interactivity and graphics come into the picture should be enough indication that games aren't solely about "writing" I googled the company and had only ever heard of Air and Clannad, and not that extensively. Both look like your generic anime fodder. Though hey, the guy who made Higurashi was influenced by them! Not that I'd argue that Higurashi is particularly exemplary of a great story, as cool as it is. Wow, a quick search on google and you figured out that much? You must be the omnipotent messiah! Honestly this is the equivalent to your attitude of "skimpy clothing = poor writing" so it didn't surprise me. What's your definition of a great story then? Not all developers are racist, and black protagonists exist, and I've never seen people complain about the "shoehorned ethnic protagonists" for these, at least. There no need to exclude them, but there's no need for a push for equal representation either? Do you just like ignoring the points made or are you genuinely that stupid? Yes, the more storytellers fall back on the same tropes, the more tired they get. If you're fine with bad writing then that's your prerogative-- other people are comfortable with it too. At the same time, people are also going to call some of your beloved games exemplary of shitty writing. Hell, there are lots of games I love with shitty writing, and it doesn't hurt me to admit it. As said previously, your definition of "bad writing" seems to be equivalent to the plot having one factor you don't like. Hence you citing "bad/poor writing" means nothing to me. Tropes can be used effectively, and doesn't need to be repetitive. I guarantee that any idea you come up with in writing, can nearly always always attributed as a similar/same situation as past works. Keep up. I was answering his question in reference to two articles I posted. Your articles which aren't related to gaming at all? Honestly, you seem to be one of those poor people who can't distinuish between games and reality. Doesn't surprise me since you're looking for political messages and what could be potentially offending in your games. Overall I've just concluded that you're an extremist who likes wailing about being victimized, and your last few posts have been.... less then amusing. I'm not sorry to say that this discussion has lost my interest, so this will most likely be my last post in this thread until someone else presents an interesting view.

Society's conditioned young women to believe that the idealized male fantasy of their body is the only path to empowerment... except they're essentially attaining this by manipulating otherwise unattainable power. It's demeaning to her even if she reaps in short term gains. How is it demeaning? Do you even know what demeaning means? In objectification sure, the man is looking at the woman as an object. That is demeaning. However if a woman voluntarily decides to manipulate her body to get what she wants, how is it degrading her character of value? The manipulation behind the act shows that their is intelligence behind the act and this isn't a case of the woman going "Look I'm an object" <_< If anything she's confident in her physical appearance and can flaunt it. Attractive appearance or an unattractive appearance, do I need to tell you which increases value more? Before anyone says something stupid it's not "What's inside that counts" Every counts, external appearance as well. The saying is merely indicating the tier of priorities. First off, developers objectifying the female figure and using that for marketing are at fault. Fans are always going to take even relatively nonsexual characters and put them in a sexual context, but the portrayal of women in the "culture" as a whole is reinforcing/encouraging this. This is your opinion, citing video's and websites shows that there is support, but if the idea hasn't gotten through to game developers then chances are, there are voices against your opinion as well. Your outlook on objectification reminds me of black people Kanami: "Reminds me of black people" Blackie: Don't call me black, black is a racist term and is demeaning Kanami: So what do you want to be called? Blackie: African American Kanami: So you're part African? Blackie: No, how about dark skinned then? Kanami: Dark skinned? So what's normal skinned? White? Blackie: No, but it's insulting being called black because it's negative. Kanami: And you're calling other people racists <_< Here are a bunch of nonexistent feminists and minorities who share a variety of concerns on these kinds of issues. You could check it out or you can continue to deny that this isn't an issue for marginalized groups. I'd be interested in knowing how many of them are actually gamers, but more importantly how many people make up the "feminist" minority. From my perspective (Developed world) feminists stopped fighting for equal rights ages ago. And are moving well into "extra rights." And it's people like you who like playing victim which encourages such behavior. You said earlier that you knew the value of a discussion after seeing the response to the word "feminism." I can do that too. Anyone who claims to be a feminist is as credible as a Christian saying "cause the bible said so" probably even less because they don't have such a text. But feminists are not qualified individuals, it's not the same as a professor commenting on his area of study. Next, women not are not a marginalized group, I've pointed out asians before. But claiming women to be marginalized is ridiculous. You yourself originally seem to know this as the topic is "Portrayal of women and marginalized groups." That cite doesn't cite sources, and isn't any different from the rantings of you or myself. Are you honestly just pulling non-creditable sources from the internet? If you want to throw each other at opinions which can't be backed up, and are resorting to numbers your argument is rather flawed. Yes, it's objectification. You can argue its place as a major tenet of game design, but there's no grounds to argue that it isn't objectification. Frankly I find it stupid when someone buys a game just for "jiggletits" however it's equally stupid when someone doesn't buy a game solely because it has jiggletits. You can cite as many minor extremists as you want. Looking at the entire gaming populace though, I don't see any cries of outrage over the minorities. Hell I remember a blog a few months back which was complaining FF13 didn't have an original plot. Doesn't mean it's true just because a few websites can link. As for objectification? Why must there only be unacceptable objectification? It a game character for crying out loud. Why should it be insulting? It's not implying all women are like that or anything <_< I haven't. Unless by "relative" you mean "the majority of stories in games are shit so these stories are slightly less shitty". Examples, please? Okay, your logic is extremely immature. You wouldn't happen to be the 12 year old mexican girl would you? With what you're saying a movie with a sex scene in it becomes "shitty" because it had a sex scene in it. Why does that one scene null out all the other scenes which may have been well written and acted out extremely well? What are you? Scared of sex? As for examples games aren't exactly the best medium for writing. So if you're looking at games and wondering why it's not as good as you average novel, it's probably because of the visual concept and "gameply" which opt to put you in the characters shoes, opposed to just telling you about it. I can't give you as many examples as I'd like since I don't think about minorities and objectification while playing games. I prefer to just enjoy them. Opposed to looking for issues which I could possibly find offending. Furthermore I don't "own" many west produced games, However while it's not a game produced in the west. I'm a major fan of Visual Art's/Key. Which makes game in the eroge sub-industry of gaming. Yes they have panty shots, bathing scenes and even sex scenes! *le gaps* However I have a serious bone to pick to with you if you're going to say that their narrative/plot isn't well done. When it's obviously forced fanservice, e.g. unnecessarily forced panty shots, stripping down, male gaze, etc, it detracts. People are comfortable with cheesy lines, terribly overused tropes, tired stereotypes, cliches-- when there's no bit of self-awareness applied to them, it's poor writing. Fanservice falls under that umbrella. I like certain cliches concerning jrpg heroes, but I concede it to be terrible writing, and I can see why people would want to do away with it. .... So one scene of forced fanservice makes the entire story "shitty?" (Discussed above) And this isn't any different from your racial representation argument really. Developers aren't leaning towards making a black protagonist. So why should they go out of their way to conceptualize a black protagonist? This is what I mean by "forced." Wait, people are comfortable with cheesy lines, overused tropes, tired stereotypes.... yet you're complaining that stereotypes are insulting and unoriginality is boring? Sorry what? You keep speaking of "people" but the "people" you seem to be referring to, and the "people" I know seem to be completely at odds with eachother. A call and push for more political agency for marginalized groups, i.e. more women and minority legislators, more involved with the justice system, more in executive positions. Less preferential treatment to the privileged groups-- less "I didn't hire him because he had a ghetto sounding name", less "I don't mind black people when they aren't acting black"/"where's WHITE STRAIGHT entertainment television? WTF are you talking about? How does this change anything in the gaming industry?

Incorrect, I've now several cases were a woman uses her youth, position and body to get what she wants. That's not to say she stripped, but she stilled used herself as an object in a sense. Hell working in a fast food store is probably objectification in your eyes considering the low pay rates and work conditions. have you maybe considered that what you're whining about may not necessarily constitute as objectification for others?I admit that there have been some games that push the button, however most in general isn't a case of the developers objectifying women. But the fans getting too obsessed with a character design and "objectifying" this isn't solely exclusive to skimpy clad women either. Well unless you consider Mia to be skimpy. .....Wtf are you arguing about again? It just hit me now, but women in games aren't women <_< It's sketchy whether a feminist would even complain that a character is scantily clad in a video game. Male characters go topless, don't hear anyone complaining about that? Just in case you forget or didn't know. 2D women don't have rights. Your statement in accurate, but the issue lies with what they identify as objectification. I live with another girl (22) and a guy (26) and neither of them believe that gaming is objectifying women enough to warrant complaints. (Both are avid gamers). Being female myself, I have to agree with them, I would find females being objectified irritating, but to what extent? Fanservice is fan service and that's not really objectification at an outrageous level. Valarevans words were completely lost on you weren't they? WHY can't a game have high-quality storytelling, narrative, game mechanics and fan service? Huh? WHY? Since I've seen games that do all all four relatively well. -Why can't a game have "Boobs" and quality writing? -Why must fanservice come at the expense of narratives? -What the hell has characters wearing skimpy clothing got to do with game mechanics? You haven't answered this question once yet. Focusing on itty insignificant bits so I'll ask again: What is restricting game developers from having a good story, good gameplay and fanservice? And again :/ Why must fanservice come at the expense of gaming quality? And again <_< How does characters wearing tight clothes, or having skin exposed detract from the plot and game mechanics? .... Do I need to say it again?

And designers want the players to like the character they're playing as. If that means the guy needs to be a muscular then so be it? A motherly NPC? A roughed up ex-soldier with a bad past? These are stereotypes? I bet the motherly NPC also makes you breakfast and gives you a free place to stay overnight. The ex-soldier would be dark brooding and depending on whether they join your "party" lighten up or just remain an alcoholic that sits infront of the window staring at the outside world. I don't see the point of arguing away stereotypes. They're here to stay. A Poll would be necessary to determine how much is objectification, personally I've never had a problem with jiggletits. And I know a few other girls who don't either. They, like myself think there are much more important aspects of a game which could be worked on. Toning down on the sex wouldn't be a bad thing. But it's at the bottom of the priorities list.

Valid points but not the thing I was getting at. Pedophilia being a crime and morally wrong isn't important to the argument. And by no means am I trying to legalized/validate it. What I'm saying is, if you can condition someones sexual attraction to something else, can't that be used on heterosexuals to term them homosexual? If it's possible to turn a pedophile into a non-pedophile. Consent isn't an issue since I'm not interested in the criminal or moral issues, just the psychological perspective of the pedophile in this specific case. Of course, this entire thing falls apart if it's not possible to change a pedophile. (As you said they could just be better at hiding it) Which makes me wonder how useful rehabilitation really is. Agree with all points, but reading about classical conditioning made me wonder, if it's possible to change things like sexuality (disregard morals). Since I conditioning can make me scared of apples by making me associate apples with being kicked(pain). (If done effectively enough times). As for homosexuality/pedophilia being genetic. I'm still uncertain about that one, still waiting for them to find the genetic string which makes someone homosexual:p

Not really out of malice or anything, but responding to your posts are giving me a headache. Cry ad hominem or something, but you seem pretty unwilling to understand my arguments. Every time I try to explain something, you either misinterpret it or take it to bizarre extremes and I just end up confused. (Not a comment I want to hear from you considering you've opted to ignore key points and misinterpreted several core arguments yourself. But I'll be nice and list what you've got horribly wrong in your latest post.) It doesn't need to be sexualized to sell. Oversexualization=lazy marketing and it stunts the industry. How about defining oversexualization? It's been asked of you before. Big breasts alone don't seem like oversexualizing to me. And as Vala has said, what's fan service supposed to be then? Because if the writer conceptualized a character as gay then it's integral to the character. If I wrote a short story with a rich WASP main character, it'd feel weird to make him anything else but white. Nobody's asking for gays for the sake of gays. The thing is, makers aren't conceptualizing gay characters, so why should a gay cast be included? As I've said several times, I'm not against including gay characters, but why have them? Representation? So if the conceptualizing is a "White" What's the problem? For the same reason I'd consider unreasonable armor a poor design choice. That has abosolutely nothing to do with a white cast and poor writing. Nothing's realistically constraining developers to make a game with a diverse cast. Nothing's realistically making developers have to make a game with a diverse cast either. The stereotype is offensive? What's hard to understand about this? You find sole stereotypes insulting? I can understand how a PIMP town, with all black people all wearing golden chains, with slutty prostitutes around could be interpreted that way. But a funny guy is insulting to you huh? What else do you find offensive? The fact that the Wii was originally white? I think you misread Kiryn's post if you think she's happy with the kind of games that cater to young girls. And having an ethnic character as a main character isn't catering to an ethnicity. White gamers aren't immediately turned off if their in-game avatar is a fucking hedgehog, much less a mexican or something. Did you read my post at all? Either of them? I haven't said anyones portraying girl games in a positive light. Kiryns indicated that games directed at girls were all "Pink Ponies" when realistically those games aren't directed at all females but a small group of females(children). So the question is, why do games need to be tailored to suit females? Homosexuals? Blacks? Can't they all just play the same game?As for white gamers? If they're not, why are you turned off playing games without a racially diverse cast? I can't tell if you're just being disingenuous now or what. Answer the question? If you're able to expand your mind to include a diverse range of characters, you've shown some capability to "think beyond the box", on the most simplistic level of answering this. Oh right, and the only way to express a diverse cast is via ethnicities. Um. Ethnic main characters aren't racist towards whites. At all. I can't wrap my mind around this. What do you have against the white heroine? I'm not calling the characters racist. You seem to want to make an absolute differentiation between white characters and non-white characters.

Maybe in the short-term, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could easily widen their audience by taking more risks. (Short-term is fine, the objective first and foremost is to get them to buy the game) Gays are people like you and me. :) (False... gays like people of the same gender as themselves. As stated prior social norm makes us think characters are straight. So to highlight a character being homosexual would require some sort of indication towards their sexual preference. Nothing says a game with a good plot or gameplay can't have a gay main character, then? If it's fun, people will play it. (There's also nothing saying people will play it if it's got "gay characters" in it. Hence this isn't debating "gays" but plot/gameplay, which we've both agreed is essential in a game. Gay characters for the sake of gay characters doesn't make sense. What is "the game"? I'm not talking about any specific game. I'm saying that if it doesn't make any sense in the context of the game, an all-white cast is pretty much a sign of poor writing. ("The game" is any game you or myself may or may not refer to. In other words, any game. I think you're starting to brink on racism if "white cast=poor sign of writing) Why would having a diverse cast of characters come off as "forced"? Can't there just be a black or latino or hmong or whatever character because these ethnicities exist in the context of our world? (It's forced because you're trying to get a diverse cast in for reasons other then plot/gameplay. The reason you cited was equal representation. This is not plot or gameplay, but issues and interpretation related) Besides the fact that the stereotype is getting tiring, it also has some pretty nasty implications about the role as blacks in America's past so yeah, it's offensive in the same way the Uncle Tom trope is offensive. (So who's offending? The game creators? Are they making black characters funny because they think black people are stupid and only good for laughs? Do you honestly think that's what game makers are thinking? As for stereotypes, they can be used well depending on the creator) If it's set in modern-day or futuristic America and totally white-washed then whether you find it offensive or not, it's objectively poor writing. (I've commented on this before, and basing any game in our world is "poor writing" Am I to complain that war games based on military operations in the middle east are encouraging racism and the idea that middle-eastern people=terrorists?) WHAT GAME. What game are we talking about? I'm not talking about "a game", I'm talking about the industry. :| (Vala? Esau? Anyone? Please tell me I'm not wrong in thinking "a game" means any game in general and not one specific game? <_< I guess we're not accounting for taste here. (Then we shouldn't consider how you don't like "jiggly boobs?" What the hell are you responding to here? I'm pretty sure nobody in this thread has anything good to say about girly shovelware. (Did you read Kiryn's posts or not? You included seem to be indicating that games should be directed at specific ethnicities/genders/sexualities. The question is why can't Halo (or any other game) cater for these people?) I think you're getting me confused with someone else, because I never said that. I interact with a wide variety of dudes: some play video games, some don't, some are gay, some are straight, and really, I'd be insulting their intelligence to throw boobs in their face and go HERE WILL YOU BUY THIS NOW? (Your remarks are slowly losing intellectual value now. You can't differentiate race from quality writing, sex from porn, and now are trying to completely ignore the element of gameplay. How many times do people need to tell you that gameplay and sex are not the same issue? If I flip the question, "I'd be insulting your intelligence to throw a game with a Latina Heroine in your face and go HERE WILL YOU BUY THIS NOW?") Why does Bayonetta have to be a rolemodel (Ignoring the point, and focusing on the example? :/ Now you're being stupid. Why do we need games to have rolemodels? You consider it sick to be aroused by pixel boobs, then why do you think it's okay to respect pixel characters? Representation would probably be the byproduct of better writing. (Fact remains, better writing can occur without representation. And Representation doesn't lead to better writing.) No you're not. I can't even begin to comprehend how having main characters of different ethnicities are "taking away" from white representation. The white chick is in no shortage of white heroines. :) (You should probably shut up now as you're starting to be a "racist" yourself) Your arguments seem to be framed around "a game"; when I say specific, I don't mean you're referring to an existing game, but your retorts to my arguments are basically strawmen in game form. "OH SO NOW A GAME HAS TO HAVE X" (Someone help?) Haha so every minority character is actually a deviation from the "default"? Erm... (From your definition yes. "White character is default, should have more ethnic alterations" is what you're preaching) It's fine if you like it because you're comfortable and familiar with it, but it's not good writing. (I don't have faith in your definition of "good writing" if representation=good writing.) I'm not personally upset with you, but you seem to be really ignorant of the racial landscape in the West and seem to have some preconceived notion of it that I'm not sure how I could pry out, so it's probably a lot of wasted efforts responding to some of the "race isn't important" crap. Oh yay! I've found another Victim Racist! And go figure you resort to claiming superior knowledge and my ignorance. Yeah, the whole image of women that seems to be prevalent with "gamer culture" wouldn't alienate potential female customers at all. False *gets propositioned by a female* Main Character: No thanks, I'm not into girls. Wowzers! Please tell me that wasn't "good writing" the concept isn't even any good. Using sex in games to sell them is inevitable, but it shouldn't be a defining factor of the industry. Sex sells with movies and TV shows, but there's not the same icky stereotypes associated with these forms of media. I don't see your the industry reflecting your comment, what basis are you arguing that sex sells with movies and tv but not games?

Glad I got that out of the way without a fuss XD Developer interviews are interesting, I just don't agree that them saying "so-and-so" is homosexual is all that great if there wasn't material within the game which indicated as such. Likewise writing in the book that a certain character is gay isn't any better. As for arguing speculation and bellyaching.... I'm personally fine with that. If I want to think Ike and Soren "get it on" behind the scenes that's my happy little world (fortunately I don't think that) and I don't see why characters can't develop independantly within the gamers mind. Even if we played the same game, we'd get different interpretations of the character. (You might think awesome hero, while I think pesky no-good do-good'er) So while it does settle the yammerings of fanatical fans, there is merit in letting peoples imagination run wildWaiting to see how Noodles would like to portray a gay character without using sex, without staring at another guys backside (figuratively) and still pull it off.

Well from what I've found so far it seems to mainly be counseling and re-education. Words of interest include -Rehabilitation -Penology -Recidivism -Deterrence -Utilitarianism -Classic Conditioning What you're essentially asking is "Why do people commit crime?" And then trying to work out why this "urge" no longer exists after they are released from prison. For things like Theft (Simple) it could be because they're poor. (Re-educated so they can get a job, otherwise they'll reoffend) Or it may be because they have a habit of it and subconsciously think it's alright (Needs to be reconditioned) As for murderers and rapists, it involves things like having a sense of power. And psychological treatment seems to be the only valid answer I can find. Essentially, what you need to do is beat into them that murder=bad. There was one case of classical conditioning which I found hilarious, though it's regarding releasing sexual tension over certain material, and then punishing them for getting excited over non-acceptable sexual images. It's an interesting field since there's the belief that "I was born gay." If that's the case Can't pedophiles argue they were born that way? Sure being gay isn't a crime, (in most countries it's been decriminalised) but is pedophilia the same? And if it's possible to condition pedophiles out of pedophilia, is it possible to condition gays to be heterosexual? Or even condition heterosexuals to become homosexuals/bisexuals? :/ Anyway, stories don't seem to be very abundant online, there's probably a few pay sites which have the material up, But if you think about it. It's unlikely for a rapist to put his name up on the internet and tell us how he was rehabilitated. Is this an assignment or just an area of interest for you?

You are reading WAY the hell too far into things if "brotherhood-like friendship" = "I want you in that way". Why do two perfectly good friends of ambiguous sexuality need to be in love with each other? Unless it's stated explicitly (in-game, developer interviews, etc.), I assume it's friendship. Otherwise, why not come out and say it? Poor phrasing on my side, or rather I had too many ideas and tried to condense it too much. As you've noticed, I'm responsible for alot of the holy text walls XD What I meant was that brotherhood like friendship "IS" different to being homosexual. And that since that's another category of relationship, it's not possible to do "brotherly friendship" and then call one (or both) of the characters gay. In that sense you'd need to go a few step further to portray a gay character. And my query asked later on in regards to this is how someone can portray a gay male as gay without using the stereotypes, and not making the man in some visible form take that sort of interest in another male character. Your comment emphasizes my point that showing two characters that get along isn't the equivalent to "I want you in that way." So you'd need to go further. I don't see developer interviews as any good though if it's not evident in the game by itself that said character is homosexual. Though my overall comment is, why do we even need to portray homosexuals? Hell Cloud Strife could have been homosexual, and some people in fanfiction like portraying him as such. Doesn't mean we need an official statement to find out what sexuality a character is. I mean, is it really that important? However big breasts by itself aren't bad or good. It attracts some, it repels others. You're being pretty one sided if you can claim a majority for the anti-breast group. If big breasts cater for some, that's the TAudience. If not and it repels you, you're not the TA in that aspect. The only thing that can really be said is "Deal with it"

Personally, I'm not interested in proving myself right, though I have issues with people trying to impose certain attitudes on me (eg believe in god). And I'm not really using the term "idiot" in a hostile manner, though people interpreting it as hostile I suppose is partially the aim. Detracting from the point isn't an issue for me either, I'd rather insult someone and have them come out full force (not held back by the restraints of politeness and consideration for others) since for me at least it leads to a much more interesting argument. Being straight is a social norm (Screw whether gays is natural or not, it's a Minority). In that sense we are by default placed to think as all characters as straight until proven otherwise. Adding "Is a gay male" in the little book profile that comes with the game is rather pointless isn't it? So what? As I keep saying that's forcing it in there. My issue with LGBT inclusions is that there's no way of indicating a gay as a gay without hinting at his sexual preference. Since essentially a gay man is no different from a straight man if we exclude the sexual preference. So how would you go about portraying a character as gay? The typical portrayal of gays I've seen are the "girly-gays" but that's a stereotype right? How would you portray a character as gay and "normal" without touching on the sexual preference aspect? Also, we seem to be going arguing separate things, I'm not against homosexual characters, they've been done successfully before, however giving them the main role (You've stated in the OP about not seeing a LGBT main character) isn't something I can agree with. As for giving them important roles.... I honestly don't play enough American/European games to understand what the difference between an unimportant and important character is. Just as a basis point though is Sazh an important or unimportant character? I think it was more plot driven, and that it was more "look that's something new" then people actually liking the "gay" aspect of the characters. Putting emphasis on the "gay aspect" is like creditting a movie as good just because it had Bruce Willis in it..... okay screw that, I don't understand you "humans" <_< My stance is, it's the plot/gameplay and issues raised(complications) which make for a good source of entertainment. And how it's done. Having more black/hispanic characters isn't going to make the game/movie/story better by any means. It opens up a new area which can be explored if a they're not all white. But there's enough areas that can be used even if they are. And with your "stereotypes" attitude, wouldn't the "new area" be nulled if we got a white single father, who was disabled that wore a MrT shirt? I'm not saying keep races out, but more that it shouldn't be a priority or issue to force multiple races in when their not neccessary, the lack of implementation by gaming industries sort of takes a nod to this as they're not adapting to this issue of yours. And surely if you were able to think of it, (with most of your school friends) they've heard it at least once before. You're missing the point completely, the point is, why should a black person be offended that a black person in a game is portrayed as the "funny black guy?" You're taking things way to personally if you're looking at the "funny black guy" and kicking up a storm that not all black people are "funny black guys." It's not insulting, do you honestly think game makers are going, "Hey, black people are stupid lets make him the comedic relief character?" A game isn't supposed to portray our world but their(game makers) world. And we're invited into it by purchasing the game. Attributing everything that happens into the game to the real world, is like taking everything on the internet seriously. So you prefer equality more then an interesting character? If so, I'm not sorry to say you have your priorities mixed up. 1: How does this improve a game?2:You have an issue with exploited characters? I thought the whole idea of retail fiction was to exploit characters to make the game better? If you're talking about sexual overuse I don't see what the problem is. Yes I don't want sex bogging down my game, yes I don't want the game to revolve around how attractive the characters are. However I DO want my game characters to be attractive, Using a prior example, imagine a game where you're Lehran and your team consists of the Begnion senate. If they need to show a bit of flesh to appeal to some people that's fine by me. 3: Contrary to what most of you have said, I disagree with the "catch up to expanding market" theory. Going with girl games I honestly don't believe that Pink Pony games are directed at all female gamers. It's directed at little girls. Once you graduate being a little girl you join the main stream of gaming. Halo is not a male game. And neither are all the other titles. With women coming out of the traditional roles (they've well and truly come out by now) you're the ones who haven't caught up if you think games a girl should be playing are exclusive to Cooking Mama. As for race.... I don't even want to think about how stupid making race specific games are. "This game is for asians!" <_< If you don't see how stupid that is, well, you're stupid. Do you talk to any males? Hell I said TA earlier and it was interpreted as tits and ass <_< "Jiggly tits" are just as important as your "racial representation" (That's me saying both are near meaningless) Using your logic people don't enjoy "jiggly tits" but Esau has stated he does like his females characters showing some skin. Isn't that a minority group (in your eyes) then? Why should it be removed if there is a willing and buying market out there? First and foremostly can I say something really important?If you're looking at games for role-models, you're a fucking idiot" Yes that comment did deserve swearing for the sake of emphasis Is it not bad enough that we have young girls looking at Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton as rolemodels? Do we really need 12 year old Mexican girls looking at a latina version of bayonetta and saying, "I want to be an emotionless, gun wielding crazy walking around shooting people" I've never agreed with the "violent games make violent people" concept as a whole. But if you're looking to game characters for rolemodels then that's truly pathetic regardless of what anyones opinion is. Look to real people for role models (preferably the ones which aren't breaking the law constantly) Now that I've got that off my chest. You're method of introducing women and ethnicities is "forced" as it's supposedly pushing things into a slow moving change in attitudes. To be completely honest, I'm a Japanese gamer (said it before) and have never noticed how women aren't represented properly in games. But in terms of ethnics. What's your reasoning for putting them in? It's not because it's plot necessary, it's not because it would make the gameplay better. It's because you want representation. And if that's the sole reason of implementation, then yes it's "forcing" As for the Mexican little girl..... so what? By making the latina heroine, you've now taken away from the white little girl who would have wanted the role to be played by a white heroine. I also don't see what you mean by "milking the same tired demographic" since I haven't actually heard a complaint saying "I'm sick of white protagonists" or is that what you're saying? Please clarify since I'm currently under the impression you trying to "get ethnics in" not "get white out" No idea what you're talking about, did I mention a specific game? I might of used something as an example, but I certainly am not referring to one stand-alone example in a game. (What game did I focus on?) Incorrect, What it is saying is that if there's no need to change from the default of white, why change that? The character doesn't need to be established, it default is white, and default works, what's wrong with default? This is in relation to the planning stages of a character, not previously established ones. I don't know what "colorblindness" is but it sounds like something I can agree with. I'd rather turn a blind eye to some being black then go "Oh, he's black, he deserves special treatment." With the exception of one specific race, I don't look at someones racial background when evaluating them. I don't do it negatively (black=Don't work) and I don't do it positively (Black people deserve extra financial assistance because they're discriminated against). So in a sense, yes. I am colorblind as I don't separate people based on their ethnicity.I don't understand what discriminated people are trying to do. On one hand they want to be treated and looked at the same way, and the next they're saying they're different and need to be treated differently. Using women as an example. (ignore whether you personally agree or disagree with the topic). Women can fight just as well as men, so a woman should be able to fight. However a man shouldn't hit a woman..... Are they equals or beings which need to be protected? <_< Make up your minds. As for race directly, it matters in real life. Why it matters in your tv isn't something I'm quite understanding. A character is an integral part of the story, (In my case it's the first and foremost factor in a story/plot) I'm not seeing though how a characters ethnicity comes into the equation. Diversity comes in more forms then just race. And I disagree that stereotypes are bland. Originality is overrated these days, and looking at Japanese games, I've come to love my stereotypical hot headed characters. .... Make up your mind, are you trying to emphasize that you're different, or are you telling everyone you're the same? And as far as I know (supporting Esau's knowledge) there's more asians in the world then whites..... does that mean white people are a minority too? Poor writing in games isn't accepted by me. However I don't see how racial switching will increase writing either.As for your alienated friends?.... If they're feeling that alienated then they're probably a bit too self-conscious. Are they the type of people who go to job interviews, are placed in cue of a dozen people, and come home complaining when they didn't get the job despite the 1/12 chance? Citing racial discrimination? The racists aren't any different in terms of obsessiveness to those who are crying out in outrage. They're just on the other side of the argument. Now, now, no need to get all upset, I'm reading and responding aren't I? I don't like pretending, and that's why I've called you an idiot, and why I'm arguing with you now. I say what I want to say, and will voice my objection/opinion to what others say. If I was to block my ears and go LALALALA that wouldn't only be rude and stupid. But also a bigger insult then anything I can give by responding

Murderers and serial murderers are slightly different. While in isolated cases, things like theft have a lot less repercussions, a case like"I got angry and shoved my wife, who fell down the stairs and died" Pretty much are reformed immediately after the act. Whereas "I love bringing women home and watching them beg for mercy while I stab them repeatedly"...... not so much. XD @Fionorde As I said in my last post I can't give you a referral to such sources. However I did do a short essay on Jeffrey Dahmer a few years back, and I think he cited religion (God forgave me is such a useful tool<_<) and the shock of being caught which encouraged him to change his pedo-necro-homo tendencies. Though he was killed in prison, so whether he actually meant it or not... :/ I can try look things up. "Reformed criminals why" or something like that in google should get you a few hits I'd think. But what are you looking at? Strong crimes (murder, rape) or petty crimes (Theft, GBH)? And are you looking at repeat or the once-only offender?

That's a pretty big diversity in crimes you have there, a thief might go to prison and get a "shock" which pulls him out of that habit. I know a few cases where that's occurred for people who have been using illegal drugs (casually, not dependently). Whereas a serial rapist/murder is likely to just go out (of prison after serving his term) and re offending. Since something needs to be fixed at the psychological stage, and long periods of isolation and control doesn't tend to help them reform. The most common solution I hear is seeking psychologic help, though my experience with shrinks have me doubting whether they actually help.

Yes it does imply he'd be oggling some other dude's tush. Not specifically, but many games have a romantic element added into them. The objective is to portray LGBT, so having brotherhood like friendship has already been done. The thing is, they're gay. Their love interest would be male. And many (regardless of whether they support or are against gay rights) can not put themselves in that situation. I've heard more then numerous times people say "Gays should be allowed equal rights, though I don't want them getting interested in me" or something along those lines. If you want to make a game for the gay community, by all means. But forcing it into standard games for the sake of something as unimportant as representation? As for characters with feelings? The character the comments are directed at isn't insulted, why the hell should someone else be? I used to hate a black kid, not because he was black but because of his personality. And I've insulted him more then once. Should all black people (Somewhere from Africa) be think that my insults at him were directed at the entire black populace? What obsessive mind do you have to complain about misrepresentation? ...... You people are joking right? I can understand the clothing comment, but personality? Really? 4 short (support) conversations and a chapter makes a good representation? I suppose that's the reason you're complaining about ethnicities, I like to make a judgement of the character on what they present, while you seem to like digging in and reading into what they provide.FE characters are shallow, so reading into their character become neccessary to make them interesting. A typical indepth character doesn't leave enough to be read into and therefore you need to make an issue out of race? <_< Originally, I thought you had a relatively sound point, but your later points have clearly indicated you want more latino/black protagonists. And that seems to be the bulk of your argument. Under-representation of specific ethnicities in games. And yes, I can't sympathize with their lack of representation because it's simply not an important aspect of a game. As said before, it doesn't contribute anything, and it doesn't detract anything. If a hispanic character makes the plot make more sense, go for it. There's no need to force in characters for the sake of representation. I'm not white myself. (I'm asian) but I've never felt inclined to complain about all Japanese characters being honorable, sword wiedling ninja/samurai. (Exceptions always exist). Female Ninja's were historically closer to prostitutes then fighters at times, but I don't see that represented? (Besides the bouncy breasts) If I start listing up problems with portrayals then the list is endless. However they're not exactly problems which need to be addressed in order to make the game better. Nobody said that an established white character should be black <_< What I did however say is you're being overly obsessive about the concept of race. It's not that important. And I'm going to go as far as call you (and your school friends) stupid if you think it matters enough to garner attention. If you have a problem with it, how about becoming a gaming programmer and breaking the trend? I've said before, and you've acknowledged that people are in it for the gameplay (story). So what's race got to do with anything? I fail to see how including more minorities will result in an expansion of the market if there aren't idiots out there who over-value the race of their character. Something this trivial shouldn't be a money maker. As for my whole argument? It's not "GET OVER IT" but rather why does it matter? What's the merit of breaking from stereotypes? Are you people actually offended by the funny black guy? And how does making a game more ethnicially diverse increase gamer satisfaction/company profits? Right, alienation <_< I've totally noticed that, though perhaps more importantly, the gaming is steadily and rapidly increasing, So if race obsessed idiots are feeling alienated then that's their loss. Cause lets face it. We don't care about companies making excessive amounts of profit. We're happy as long as they give us another good solid game. Yes, I expect you to shut up and take it. Because it's not insulting, it's not "offensive" it's not meant to be. And overall it's not all that important. Gameplay, let's work on gameplay <_< Strange and alien isn't even the right term to use. Hell I see most JRPG protagonists to be "strange and alien" because their so concerned about the wellbeing of their "friends" and how the have a hero complex. Political and social representation? What are you going to complain about next? That there's not an even distribution of ethnicities for news casters? Screw the news, it's the newscaster that's important. Right? Right?!?!

Get out of here, this place isn't big enough for two "Nyeh's :P" JK, Welcome, probably won't see you ever again, (I only visit specific areas of the forest) but have fun anyway, beware of the pink ponies.

Men <_<~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I somehow missed msnoodles second post, probably timing issues. Anyway. This combined with the OP seems like a rant on why there should be more ethnicities represented in games. And if that's the case I'm going to agree with Esau, I listen to enough crap about "race" in real life. I'm fine with something like the Laguz, I'm fine with pointy eared elves and ugly green orcs (Though I don't like Orcs and elves) I'm also fine with black or dark skinned characters. What I'm not fine with is people whining that their ethnicity is under represented. Cause frankly, I don't want my games to be turned into a battleground for the "racial debate." It's everywhere else, spare the gaming industry <_< If a black protagonist makes you happier, you're not much different to the "white protagonists" you're complaining. This is a forum, this is a place for discussion, and because of that, I don't mind you voicing your opinion of wanting more ethnicities implanted into games. I don't like the saying "If it isn't broken fix it" because there's always room for improvement. Changing the ethnicity of characters for the sake of representation though isn't an improvement. （Or a mistake). The day people start getting complaints like this through to the gaming industry is the day a game will be critiqued for not including a diverse range of ethnicities <_< My opinion is, if you're going to by a game because of the ethnicities represented in it... well it's bad enough at the moment with crappy games with awesome graphics getting praised. I don't need to see praise for a game which was racially diverse. That is NOT a important factor of a game being good/bad. If you're looking at games and thinking "why can't he be black/asian/blue" you're probably harboring some sort of racial prejudice/dissatisfaction yourself. As for girl games.... could you list a few? Only girl games I've seen (that aren't in an asian dialect) are directed at 6 to 8 year olds. :/ I really fail to see a problem with that. If Samus was male and needed help from said character would it be an issue? This is taking things a bit too far. It's just spinning the problem 180, and saying a woman can't receive help from a man, which gives us the typical emotionless, tough-as-nails type characters. Furthermore, I still see men at the forefront of fighting, whether it be brawls or warfare there's a stronger image of a man fighting a man then there is a woman fighting a man, or even a woman against a woman. While there are several other factors (a notable being financial status) women tend to punch out less then men. Us women prefer to verbally abuse you and talk behind others backs. Yes this is a stereotype, it is also however pretty accurate if you look at crime statistics. Characterization is important regardless of ethnicity, but I see your point here. Personally, I don't know how I'd feel about a dark skinned protagonist, I've never been inclined to buy them, so I might be a member of the "less accepting audience" though I attribute it mainly to the types of games they star in, drugs, money, murder etc. In my defense though, I also don't own any white protagonists games which have similar mechanics. I'm more a fantasy world gamer and have stayed well clear of things like GTA. @Overall In terms of race though I do have one problem, (though it's a genre I don't buy in). Bloody American soldiers, I don't care how good your training is, one soldiers is not going to take out an entire platoon out by himself <_< I know it's the nature of games to have the controlled character be almighty and powerful. But I don't need to see games conveying political messages at me. <_< Probably a contributing factor as to why I don't like those types of games. It'd be appreciated if race and ethnicity could stay the hell away from my gaming experience. *Wondering when we'll get a game where we have to infiltrate the head office of the FBI, find documents which send you off to the Pentagon on a murderous rampage, followed by lighting the White house on fire and making Miss Liberty go boom!* Would I buy such a game? Certainly not, shooting games=eww, but if that isn't politically heavy enough for you, go buy some game where you shoot bearded men with turbans <_< I'm sure both games will be equally as entertaining for different people

..... You don't look at the TA, you are the TA..... Whoops, thought I'd stated what TA was, TA=Target Audience, obviously I hadn't. Just out of curiosity though what's "t&a"?

"TA" answers most of your questions. It doesn't matter how many more latino children play games, the creators are directing the game at a specific group of people, from a specific race. While this TA may involve and intrigue others, when you think of the latest Final Fantasy or Shoot'em up games the mental image that comes up is a caucasian teenage male with a hoodie mashing on buttons. As for the appearance? With burly muscular studs or scantily clothed women? Sex sells, I'm sure you've heard it before. People would much rather play as a attractive character then a man wearing makeup going "Uwee hee hee!" (For anything other then a joke). You also want the gamer to connect with the main character. "Screw humanity, I'm going to destroy the world" might be a fun idea for some, but more often then not games are tailored for those who want to save the world from this "big baddy" who's trying to wipe out mankind. In that sense a gay, lesbian or transexual character isn't something the "majority" can connect with, while an individual may not have animosity for the LGBT community, having "your character" (which is in essence you within the videogame) oggling another man backside isn't something people would enjoy. It's not exclusive to appearance, I personally wouldn't play a game which has a main character which cusses in every sentence simply because I'm not a fan of swearing. Prefer: Can you do anything right? You're useless Don't Prefer: F**k, you useless piece of shit, Can't f**king do anything right you little turd? Stereotypes are stereotypes, and that's what they're there for. I'm more of a Japanese gamer then a US gamer, but the use of stereotypes exists in both. For example if a girl has glasses, for some reason she's also got huge breasts. And is often a clutz. Whereas the US seems to associate women wearing glasses with intelligence and labcoats. I don't see the issue in using stereotypes in games, being offended by it's use is going a bit far. Despite what some like to think game characters don't have feelings, and they don't respond whether you respect or hate them. (Interestingly, the opposite occurs for males, US four-eyed males tend to be nerdy, weak-willed and the typical "bullied kid" type, though tech savvy intelligence is well established these days. While Japan four-eyed males are using quiet, intelligent "play it cool" types.) ThisI can already hear the stupid mother of some gay kid complaining Adam Lambert's Rainbow Six, was the cause of her son turning gay. And how the game deprived her of grandchildren, and destroyed her relationship with her son. Which prevents her from sleeping at night, which has made her ill. Which has.... it goes on and on.

You haven't said that specifically, but the idea of "they could have interacted with you" sort of implied to me that you were implying, since everyone has a potential to interact with me, I should keep an open mind and look at a death of a person, as a lost communication chance. (In which case the number of possible interactions and saddness would be near infinite)I agree it's not impossible, but again, I can't care for something I don't know about. And that potential was never acknowledged by me before their deaths. And now that they are dead, that potential too doesn't exist. Interesting comparison with the bacteria and human. But broadly speaking, yes I would react the same. In that example it depends on the bacteria or person. If the bacteria was the cause of illness then I'd be happy, and if the human was a guilty criminal I'd be happy. Likewise if the bacteria prevented illness and the person was a typical person... I'd probably pay attention to the bacteria more actually :/ The comparison isn't supposed to illustrate the difference in capabilities, I've repeatedly said that I don't really think that an individuals capabilities is related to how tragic the death is. It doesn't lack the ability to feel, but it does lack the ability to communicate as effectively, the comparison here is not between the animal and human (Human and ant in your example) but human and human. A non-retarded with a retarded. My non-verbal cues don't really exist with you, unless you're reading into comments which creates a high chance of error. In a RL situation though, those verbal cues are just as likely to be missed as noticed. To flip the situation, what makes the death of a loved one more important then the death of an unknown? Assuming the unknown was loved as well. What's the difference between your mother dying, and Bob's mother dying? Aren't they equally as tragic? Bobs mother had equal capabilities as your mother. Both are human beings. Which is my main reason for this approach, why would I want to make myself feel more "sad" then neccessary? I know this isn't an issue where you can flip the switch and your emotions go off. However trying to convince me I should care about the life of unknowns is convincing me to feel more negative about the things that occur around me (in this world). This, except I'm a she :P

I agree that under certain circumstances an individual should stand up for himself. I just don't agree that it's admirable to do so. In regards to higher communication capabilities, I don't see why it matters what capability is higher. While I am a "social" creature, I don't have the urge to communicate with as many people as possible. On the contrary I prefer to have my own close group of friends. As stupid as this may sound, death and departure aren't too different for me on the internet. I'm interacting with Esau at the moment. Whether you die in a car accident, or simply get bored of the internet and vanish without a trace, doesn't make much of a difference to me. Say a friend of yours in on SF and told me that you'd died in a car accident. That would change the focus and emotions behind the departure. But as of yet, I've interacted and lost touch with a lot of people over the internet (many for the better). And have yet to be informed that any of them have died. (Excluding one). My communicative abilities with you at present is limited to SF. If you were to quit SF tomorrow, you'd be gone and to me "Esau the online profile" would have "died" Should I feel grief over your departure? maybe (I'm not exactly friends with you) Should it hold an equal amount of weight to you actually dying? I'd like to think not. Simply put I can't feel anything for those who have died if I know nothing about them, if I don't know they died how can I mourn their deaths? And as a flow on, if I didn't know who they were before hand what am I giving weight? The sole fact that someone died? I don't see the need to differentiate between the levels of feeling and communicative abilities. Obviously I value myself over an ant. I value myself over any other living human being for that matter. Depending on the sentimental value I place on the "ant" I could value it more then your life. Say it was a present from a close friend who I've lost touch with (Ant colony display thingies, though he'd be a pretty shitty friend in terms of presents). A life is a life as far as I see things, it's the amount of value attached to the life (personal value) that determines the weight of a loss. And I don't value a person I don't know. The child, I don't like working with probabilities too much, since the child could have turned into a stupid serial rapist in terms of probabilities. And while there's no reason to think he'll turn into a rapist, there's no reason to believe his "communicative skills" would ever exceed the business man. I admit, they're different, but removing the fact that it's "my" cat. And saying it's just a typical cat. Their abilities are obviously as you say different. However why should I judge a being on it's ability to feel and share? A "retarded" person probably doesn't have the potential (or as big a potential) in comparison to a typical person. I'm sure you're not telling me I should value the typical person more, simply because the "retarded" doesn't have the ability to share and communicate as effectively. (Or is that what you're saying?) Hmmm communication error XD Obviously a reaction is automatic, I didn't mean that I can control my emotions that well. However the communication phase itself can be removed. Lets say I see you as an idiot. If I tell you that then you'd react (in some minor form). However if I didn't tell you, you wouldn't make that reaction. And since I can foresee the reaction to be negative I wouldn't do it. Unless I wanted to cause a negative reaction In terms of lacing "social contact" for a prolonged period of time, I may listen in awe, but I'd prefer to meet a friend opposed to some random individual. Communication is a pain, while we may react to being called an idiot. I don't think anyone would jump up in excitement at being called one. It's a (relatively) painful remark. And in a good portion of cases it is unnecessary to say so. Not all communication is painful, but not all communication is unpainful. Telling a six year old kid that his parents didn't want him, isn't going to do much good. I agree, I may have interacted with them, however I don't know who they are. I haven't paid enough attention to that incident to even know one victims name. I could probably look it up if I wanted, but I don't. And I can't feel dismayed by a fact I'm not aware of. One of the victims could have been planning to leave the US and become my neighbor, but I'll never know that. And feeling upset over such a slim possibility seems rather..... silly? Again highlighting the communication potential, The potential of communicating with my father would have been much higher then the neighbor, yet you and myself both would feel worse with the brother like neighbor. Highlighting sentimental value over an individuals capabilities and possibilities. I think it's clear that I'm much more "insensitive" then you are in regards to a death. While hardly accurate: Devastated: (Esau Family) Saddened: (Esau Deceased)/(Kanami Family) Attention: (Kanami Deceased if she knew them) Doesn't care: (Kanami Deceased) I personally don't think there's a right or wrong in feeling this way. And don't think your position or my position makes for a better person. No, I wouldn't. Potential friends and friends are different. Finally, yes I have placed value on you before the deceased. That's because I know you (very little of but still know) while I don't even know if you have a neighbor, you could live in the middle of nowhere for all I know. And I've acknowledged that there's potential for me to feel for the living victims, before the deceased himself. However if Phoneix Wright told me his neighbor died, my response would be "Yeah, so?"

You would be "generally" right. (Kieru is actually also in the "generals quarters" she's just wasn't noticed trying to make an escape while Laterite showed up. The confusion and error here come from me stating that the "Captain decided to investigate" being taken by Purg as the captain moving away from his soldiers and looking for the missing. Which led to the huge bulk of reinforcements, since I thought Purg had approached the "generals quarters" before the captain made any moves. Ex (In the span of 10 seconds) Captain: I should investigate Laterite: I'm here now gimme mah pepahz! Captain: Who? Why did you just barge into my camp?

@ZXValaRevan: Yeah, I'm understanding that now, I've Roleplayed here on Serenes with him before and while I liked his activity, can't say I applauded his logic. I've spoken to him beyond genial conversation and unfortunately understand what you mean more then just partially. XD @PW Though it's my nature to respond to comments so I'll briefly touch on a few things. -Irrelevant whether it be tv, articles, newspapers, social chat groups, forums etcetc. The fact is, it's not that big a deal. Don't see why I'd have to listen to such a minor case which only affects a minority (according to you) Minority being America and Muslims. -I'm tired of listening to you telling me I'm wrong and not providing an alternate view to work with. -Abortion clinic being a yes/no is false. The most obvious issue there is whether I support abortion or not. -If it's a yes/no question, leave me alone. I agree that the man should be able to build there. And stated that in my first post. You're the one arguing with me. Using your words. -The question is "stance" Not pick a side of the fence. "stance" implies more of a "1~10 where do you fit in?" -I'm talking about the community around it, not specifically just the landowner, again, there can probably only be one person who is affected in your mind. The landowner and whether he builds or doesn't. -Style: You're not reading my style correctly then, therefore it's your own problem. Style matters, but not when you're misinterpreting. Reading that, by itself does that make any sense? No. It tell me I'm vague (About what?) and that there was a statement (which?) and that it occured before (when?).-Put simply, I'm not going to argue with you about Rights. Death's convinced me that America (or at least a portion of it's inhabitants are that "sad" and I pity them. Overall, talking you with hasn't yielded anything productive, all I've heard from you is "your wrong" "America!!!" and "I have Rights!!!" And until you come up with something more decent or useful, I don't see any reason to continue this argument with you. Yes, I'm running away because you're right and I'm wrong. Leave it at that. And leave me alone <_< @Esau Well, my apologize for making that judgement regardless. (No idea why I trusted Phoenix's analysis this time round). You're right, he's only offending those who have a problem building it. And chances are the people upset about it just don't want muslims anywhere. I work part time in the retail industry and when a woman wearing a burka comes in, I take notice. Not because I think she's hiding a bomb underneath, but I would still prefer seeing her face. It's not an offense to hide ones face, and she has her culture/religion. But that's my preference, and I'm sure everyone can agree that I'm "allowed" to want to see the face of the person I'm talking to. Though that's not to say "ban the burka." It's just my preference, which is what I think this entire thing was based on, it just escalated due to people taking extremes to argue their preferences. I agree that him making a stand is not a bad thing. I also don't think it's a good thing either. But the world isn't split into good and bad. Though I don't see a need to fight back against every "blind hate" directed towards an individual, though I suppose in this specific case he has something to lose (sort of?) So making a stand is important. As for having a strong will, I can't say I admire it since I don't think of a "strong will" as a good thing, but more that a strong will is default, and anything below (weak will) is below average. And extremities in any sense are never good. "I have the right to do this, and don't give a shit what anyone says, so you all shut up" is by no means a good attitude to have regardless of how correct you may be. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I definetely can't agree with you in the "complex creature" argument. Using non-creature and my personal situation, A Ipod is alot more complex then a pendant I own. However I'd be much more upset losing the pendant then the Ipod. So firstly complex=important is false. Secondly "social, communicative potential" isn't all that important in my eyes. The first thing that came to mind is a dead person doesn't have social, communicative potential. They're dead. Feeling upset that I never got the chance to communicate with the deceased, I most likely wouldn't have even had I gotten a chance to. Thinking and feeling is something all living creatures do, it's not exclusive to humans. Though humans do think at higher levels that's like saying a bussiness mans death is more tragic then a five year olds because the business man had a higher intellect. I admit instinct kicks in for animals, but I find it hard to believe they are not sentient beings. As for feelings? I'm sure if I kick a cat it will pain, if I do it repeatedly it may feel resentment or fear. So they're feeling creatures too. I agree, I can but generally, I won't. I admit humans are social beings which rely heavily on emotion. However that's not to say the more emotions you feel, the better. The neighbor sharing their christmas history might be fun for them, but I could have other things I want to do. And them telling me about it might only be a source of irritation. Like how "Sensitivity" differs between people, so does our reaction to certain things. And "sharing" doesn't always lead to positive results. I can sustain myself perfectly fine without knowing that my neighbor had a nice christmas. Again, being able to (excercise rights) share emotions, doesn't automaticaly lead to having to share emotions. Furthermore, I'd prefer to share grief/excistement and hardships with the people who are close to me. Usually family and friends. It stops (for me) when it doesn't have a proper connection to me. -If a friend dies, I have lost a friend, they were a good person it is a loss. -If a friends father dies, the friend like the father, they feel a loss. I share their sentiments as I didn't want my friend to go through such pain. -If a friends fathers friend dies, it depends on how much I care about the father. If I knew the father I'd feel sorry for his loss. If I didn't and the friend is upset, then I'd feel sorry for the father through the friend. -If a friends, friends, friends father dies. I probably wouldn't feel anything at all, he's no longer connected to me. Same sort of logic as distant relatives you've never met. Essentially a cousins, cousins cousin (though related to you if you travel up the family tree) isn't any different from a complete stranger. -Cousin died: *Cries* :( -Cousins cousin died: ouch -Cousins cousins cousin died: Poor guy, -Cousins cousins cousins cousin died:..... Who? As for seeing other outside my connections as one unit. I know they're different people, but they all come under the category of people I have not met, or people I haven't interacted with. And when looking at levels of care, Your neighbor has an importance of 0 to me. As does Yangchen and Chrono who I have never met talked to or interacted with. (The members on SF with a birthday today). In that sense, they are one unit as they are all labeled with "Unknown" In regards to them becoming potential family/friends. that's a rather weak argument. "If's" are near infinite, and I don't have the mental capacity to think and evaluate each one. And if they hadn't done so before dying, the "if" isn't even a possible option. @Levels of loss First though, what if I say the family cat had died? It's not human, but the loss is still there isn't it? (I don't have a cat) And personally I'd value the family cat more then the life of your neighbor since I'd have developed some sort of relation/bond to it. Going back to your point though, You value your direct loved ones above mine right? What if my neighbors loved one died? Would that be equal to someone I love dying? (You might not realize the difference since we don't know each other, but I would assume that having talked to you, me losing a loved one would hold greater weight, even if the difference is minute) What about if it was a neighbors friends neighbor? It gradually decrease until I don't feel anything anymore. I think the difference is that you place say 5% of value to the death of an unknown, whereas I place 0%. You've said it yourself, you'd feel "some measure of sadness that you(me) had to face the death of someone." Your sympathy lies with me then the deceased victim. So you're sympathizing with the non-deceased victims (family and friends of the deceased) before the deceased himself. I'd like to abstain fully answering that question since it leads to another argument altogether. What I am willing to answer is that I'm a selfish person and it would be mainly about "me." I would no longer have the chance to react with that person again, which is a loss for "me" I genuinely cared and wished them everlasting happiness which is no longer possible. Are probably the main ones.Important to clarify here that I do NOT think death is a happy event. Regardless of whether the turned to dirt, went to heaven or reincarnated. My posts just keep getting longer and longer T_T