• Log In | Sign Up

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Games Database
  • Game Discovery
  • Search
  • New Releases
  • Forums
continue reading below

Adventure Gamers - Forums

Welcome to Adventure Gamers. Please Sign In or Join Now to post.

You are here: HomeForum Home → Other → Chit Chat → Thread

Post Marker Legend:

  • New Topic New posts
  • Old Topic No new posts

Currently online

DCastKarloksohag5003Vegetable Party

Support us, by purchasing through these affiliate links

   

Should support of an artist be influenced by their beliefs/attitudes?

Avatar

Total Posts: 619

Joined 2012-06-06

PM

Quest1 - 04 June 2013 07:48 AM

I say we reject the political and cultural witch hunt instigators!

Sounds good.  Why don’t you do the same?  You’re so quick to meet out judgement and commentary on “Whiny Liberals”.  You’re doing the exact same thing you’re railing against.


Bt

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1424

Joined 2005-12-06

PM

I agree with Quest1 that some of the remarks here have been way too hateful, personally I don’t know the guy and that way don’t really have anything against him. I can also tolerate opinions that vary from my views depending how openly and aggressively someone promotes them.

But it is still a prejudiced assumption that all these people here criticising were “whiny liberals” or would let extreme views from the other standpoint go by without a thought. I totally understand getting defensive though. It’s just many of us didn’t really mean to so much criticise TenNapel than talk about the principle, so all this talk about homophobia or being an asshole is not necessarily directed towards him.

     

Currently playing: Keepsake (CPT), Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning
Recently played: Cats Organized Neatly, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Night Call, Call of the Sea, Donut County, Haven, Oknytt (CPT), Astrologaster, Observation, Carto, GreedFall
My game reviews and other stuff: Lux Atarnia

Avatar

Total Posts: 1277

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

“Political” is such a convenient euphemism to justify human rights oppression, as if there are two equal but opposite valid viewpoints. There aren’t. All discrimination must end. Much of the civilized world has already accepted this fact, and fortunately many others are catching up.

Quest1 - 04 June 2013 09:20 AM

And can I just say how absolutely disgusting it is for people to attack and smear as “worse than Hitler” anyone who believes the definition of marriage should not be changed. Having that opinion does not make one anti-gay, and it is is a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold. This is also the position that Obama ran on in 2008. Funny how he wasn’t smeared as a hateful anti-gay bigot homophobe for it then. (For those outside the US reading this and wondering whether Obama has been a good president, I will fill you in and tell you categorically that he has been utter crap.) Most of the “hate” is, in reality, coming from the people who won’t tolerate other opinions on this issue. The whole thing is a farce and is about the desire to have power and control. This isn’t simply about “equality.”

Amazing. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a whole paragraph where every single sentence is completely wrong. I ignored your earlier diatribe as being unworthy of response, but I’ll bite this time.

1) You completely made up the “worse than Hitler” bit. If you’re going to invent lies, at least make them credible.

2) Refusing people a basic human right (the right to marry) based on sexual orientation is absolutely “anti-gay”. That’s not even debatable. Don’t try to slip in “hateful” in the same breath like they’re synonymous. It may not be “string ‘em up and lynch ‘em” anti-gay, but its sole purpose is to deny gays the same right they enjoy. Perhaps segregation wasn’t “anti-race” either? (Rhetorical question.)

3) Wait, you did get one sentence correct. Obama did run on that position. And it was wrong, and he’s now admitted it. I’m sure he was indeed criticized by gay activists for his original stance. He wasn’t singled out, of course, because the other guy was no different. (Frankly, I don’t believe for a second that Obama ever opposed it, but to say so before second term would have been political suicide for the country’s first black president. But that’s neither here nor there.)

4) You should really change the channel from Fox News occasionally. Even if you don’t like everything he’s done, only a fool would “categorically” slag all the good his administration has accomplished, particularly given the colossal cluster#[email protected]%^$ he inherited. And if you can’t see any of that, then perhaps those outside the US (like me) see much more clearly than you.

5) Ah yes, the old “standing up to the bully is bullying itself” routine. I don’t deny that there is bad behaviour on both sides. But again you slip in “hate” as a lazy catch-all for any opposition. People SHOULD hate discrimination. Isn’t it the bible that teaches “love the sinner, hate the sin”?

6) Imagine that. Power and control to make one’s own choices. There’s an idea. Of course it’s about equality. I’m amused at the irony of anyone from the US crying foul about standing up to political and religious oppression, as if that wasn’t the very foundation of the country’s existence.

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Avatar

Total Posts: 473

Joined 2008-01-09

PM

Jackal - 04 June 2013 02:04 PM

You should really change the channel from Fox News occasionally.

You lose all credibility by using this line to describe someone diametrically opposed to your perspective regardless if you are right or wrong.

 

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1289

Joined 2012-07-15

PM

Well spoken Jackal. I agree 100%

Bonsai - 04 June 2013 03:29 PM
Jackal - 04 June 2013 02:04 PM

You should really change the channel from Fox News occasionally.

You lose all credibility by using this line to describe someone diametrically opposed to your perspective regardless if you are right or wrong.

 

You say that as if Fox doesn’t have a history of having various biases in their coverage of certain events. You can ask Ron Paul about that. Here in Norway we didn’t even hear of his name until after the election. I wonder why..

     

Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.

Avatar

Total Posts: 473

Joined 2008-01-09

PM

Dag - 04 June 2013 03:29 PM

My comment is directed towards our Administrator, not you.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1289

Joined 2012-07-15

PM

Bonsai - 04 June 2013 03:53 PM
Dag - 04 June 2013 03:29 PM

My comment is directed towards our Administrator, not you.

I apologize, I wasn’t aware that I was unworthy to comment on your post. Lesson learned.

     

Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.

Avatar

Total Posts: 473

Joined 2008-01-09

PM

Dag - 04 June 2013 03:29 PM
Bonsai - 04 June 2013 03:53 PM

My comment is directed towards our Administrator, not you.

I apologize, I wasn’t aware that I was unworthy to comment on your post. Lesson learned.

No problem…......and stop with the Wayne & Garth line.  Geeez

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1289

Joined 2012-07-15

PM

Wayne & Garth rules! Garth in particular Wink

     

Duckman: Can you believe it? Five hundred bucks for a parking ticket?
Cornfed Pig: You parked in a handicapped zone.
Duckman: Who cares? Nobody parks there anyway, except for the people who are supposed to park there and, hell, I can outrun them anytime.

Avatar

Total Posts: 1277

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

Luckily, my credibility on no way, shape or form depends on your approval, Bonsai.

Of course, since your pointless objection included no actual substance, I don’t know which stated opinion of mine Fox “diametrically opposes”. Does it actively promote discrimination? Good to know, thanks.

The fact that Fox is heavily slanted politically is a well-known fact. Anyone who wishes to reasonably educate themselves on matters of importance should ALWAYS seek out balanced coverage of issues. That’s basic common sense. (Or maybe not so common, apparently.)

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

Avatar

Total Posts: 473

Joined 2008-01-09

PM

Jackal - 04 June 2013 04:24 PM

Luckily, my credibility on no way, shape or form depends on your approval, Bonsai.

Of course, since your pointless objection included no actual substance, I don’t know which stated opinion of mine Fox “diametrically opposes”. Does it actively promote discrimination? Good to know, thanks.

The fact that Fox is heavily slanted politically is a well-known fact. Anyone who wishes to reasonably educate themselves on matters of importance should ALWAYS seek out balanced coverage of issues. That’s basic common sense. (Or maybe not so common, apparently.)

I am not asking for your approval. I actually agree with you stance on gay marriage…..but

If you cannot defend your position without using lines like “You should really change the channel from Fox News occasionally” tells me that you feel the need to “put someone down” and that solves nothing and kills the dialogue. There was no need to say that and that’s the point.

     

Total Posts: 247

Joined 2012-05-21

PM

Jackal - 04 June 2013 02:04 PM

2) Refusing people a basic human right (the right to marry) based on sexual orientation is absolutely “anti-gay”. That’s not even debatable. Don’t try to slip in “hateful” in the same breath like they’re synonymous. It may not be “string ‘em up and lynch ‘em” anti-gay, but its sole purpose is to deny gays the same right they enjoy. Perhaps segregation wasn’t “anti-race” either? (Rhetorical question.)

I’ve never been clear on how the right to have officially government-recognized unions that MUST be called “marriages” is in any way a “basic human right”. It may be desirable to change the definition of such a long-standing social institution, but the “right” to do so to meet one’s own desires is hardly “basic”, IMHO.

Frankly, I would be fine if the government got out of the marriage business altogether. The right to love who you choose, and form a long-standing bond with them if they feel the same way (and are capable of sound judgement, and free to refuse), THAT I would see as more of a “basic human right”. Fortunately, very few would argue with that, and the government certainly does not prevent it. Having the government officially recognize that and provide some benefits thereby is not something I see as a basic human right, and having it called by a specific name, such that something equivalent in all BUT name is deemed unacceptable, seems quite obviously not to rise to the level of basic human right.

If the ability to redefine a social institution to meet one’s own desires is really a basic human right, then logically anybody that wishes to engage in polygamy should be able to do so. Anybody that wishes to redefine marriage as a temporary agreement, that requires no divorce proceedings to dissolve, but simply expires after a set term, should also be able to do so. I don’t happen to believe that qualifies as a basic human right, though, whether or not our society ever decides that allowing such arrangements is worth such a redefinition. They may well do so, someday, just like I am fairly confident they will do so here in the not so distant future for same-sex marriage, due to the changing of the views of the society that established the institution.

To my mind there are two issues. The first is the issue of government-granted benefits being extended to two people in a committed relationship regardless of what sex those two people are. This is definitely something the government CAN legislate, though it does not actually require a redefinition of marriage. Whether the government does this would, it seems to me, logically come down to why they offer those benefits currently to heterosexual pairings. If the reasons are ones that would apply equally to homosexual pairings, then fairness would suggest that the benefits should be extended equally. If they are not, then that doesn’t necessarily follow. I don’t actually know if there is an official stance on why those benefits are offered to those that currently claim them.

If (as one possible example) it has something to do with providing the public a benefit by encouraging stability in families as they raise children, then it would suggest that the reasoning DOESN’T apply equally, as heterosexual pairings are FAR more likely to involve children. But even if that is the case, one could certainly argue that that reasoning is faulty, due to the divorce rate, or the fact that many marriages don’t produce children, or that some homosexual families DO include children, so that for that reasoning to be applied fairly it would hinge on whether children were present. In any case, I think it more appropriate to make a case from a standpoint of fairness in the offering of said benefits, rather than appealing to some “basic human right”.

The second issue is societal acceptance of same-sex relationships as equivalent to opposite sex ones. That goal is not, I think, going to be achieved by governmental decree. If same-sex marriage became the law of the land tomorrow, it would do nothing to change the minds of anybody that does not currently feel like it IS the same as traditional marriage. No, changing that view is, if it happens (as seems likely at this point) going to be an ongoing process of persuasion. And certainly having other people agree with your views on the subject is manifestly not a basic human right.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 7110

Joined 2005-09-29

PM

Quest1 - 04 June 2013 07:48 AM

Doug TenNapel’s only crime is that he is an unapologetically patriotic American and a proud conservative. People calling him an “asshole” simply don’t like his politics. It’s as simple as that. If this guy were a raging liberal whining about how government doesn’t provide him with enough free stuff, or if he were bashing Christians and disgustingly blaming the great United States or Israel for every problem in the world, then many of these same people throwing hissies over TenNapel having opinions wouldn’t bat an eye. This is about TenNapel expressing politically incorrect opinions, and nothing more.

Well, guess what, the brave and principled man Doug TenNapel seems like a fine person to me, and he’s also a brilliant artist who is going to provide us all with an amazing new adventure game. Deal with it, people.

I say we reject the political and cultural witch hunt instigators!


Absolutely right and what Millenia has said, attack on him all reeks off one lobby rampaging against him. Specially with propoganda on every forum and deliberate posting of his political comments to those who dont even know his background ,ties to make connection between his comments and kickstarter just to stop and damage his work and campaign.
This is low level stuff IMHO, so not liberal society attitude. And still the free western society calls itself fee, open minded and patient. There should be room for
everyone and should be room for others with different opinions in your heart if one
truly believes in all this open minded Liberal Art loving society.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1235

Joined 2013-03-31

PM

Mister Ed - 04 June 2013 06:02 PM

If (as one possible example) it has something to do with providing the public a benefit by encouraging stability in families as they raise children, then it would suggest that the reasoning DOESN’T apply equally, as heterosexual pairings are FAR more likely to involve children. But even if that is the case, one could certainly argue that that reasoning is faulty, due to the divorce rate, or the fact that many marriages don’t produce children, or that some homosexual families DO include children, so that for that reasoning to be applied fairly it would hinge on whether children were present. In any case, I think it more appropriate to make a case from a standpoint of fairness in the offering of said benefits, rather than appealing to some “basic human right”.

As an aside, the argument that heterosexual marriages should receive special benefits because they are more likely to involve the raising of children falls apart because these benefits are extended to heterosexual married couples regardless of whether or not the actually do have children.  Since, as you pointed out, homosexual couples can also choose to have children or not, then the likelihood of whether or not they do really has no bearing on the issue.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 1277

Joined 2012-02-17

PM

Bonsai - 04 June 2013 05:46 PM

If you cannot defend your position without using lines like “You should really change the channel from Fox News occasionally” tells me that you feel the need to “put someone down” and that solves nothing and kills the dialogue. There was no need to say that and that’s the point.

It might have been unnecessarily blunt, but when aimed at someone who spouts rhetoric-filled nonsense like “Occupy Wall Street types (you know, the worthless, welfare-demanding crowd who belong to Obama’s base of voter support)” and “these people are the dregs of society with repugnant and idiotic views”, I stand behind my assertion. Some people desperately need some perspective, if only just to get their facts straight.

In any case, it was a throwaway comment to a tangential diversion that had no bearing on the issues at hand. (I only included it to be thorough.)

Mister Ed - 04 June 2013 06:02 PM

I’ve never been clear on how the right to have officially government-recognized unions that MUST be called “marriages” is in any way a “basic human right”. It may be desirable to change the definition of such a long-standing social institution, but the “right” to do so to meet one’s own desires is hardly “basic”, IMHO.

Now there’s an actual argument! Well done. But it’s semantics, really. It’s obviously not a fundamental human NEED to marry, but it’s “basic” in the sense that there are no particular restrictions on a man and woman who wish to do so. It’s a “right” for people to be treated equally without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Clearly, at the present time, that is not the case, and equality is more than just a desire.

Frankly, I would be fine if the government got out of the marriage business altogether.

Sure, that would be fine. But the fact is, governments ARE in the marriage business, and some of them have different sets of rules for who gets in the club. That just ain’t right.

Anyway, I’ll stop debating the gay marriage point as I don’t want to derail this thread more than I already have.

     

Editor-in-Chief, some obscure little site called Adventure Gamers

You are here: HomeForum Home → Other → Chit Chat → Thread

Welcome to the Adventure Gamers forums!

Back to the top