The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: Chrispy on July 23, 2005, 03:54:33 pm



Title: "gay"
Post by: Chrispy on July 23, 2005, 03:54:33 pm
Tried fighting by yourself? You know, Cyborg is like...kind of gay :)

There is NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY >:( Get that out of your vocabulary


[Split off this topic and moved to StarBase Cafe by Meep-Eep]


Title: New Topic
Post by: Serosis on July 23, 2005, 04:06:06 pm
he means that the cyborg is happy ;D


Title: New Topic
Post by: piratebob on July 23, 2005, 05:03:30 pm
Yeah, it just doesn't have enough anger for a proper fighting spirit. Channel your frustration Austin! Then you shall be the l33t pwnz0r!


Title: New Topic
Post by: Serosis on July 23, 2005, 05:14:35 pm
Quote
Then you shall be the l33t pwnz0r!

god i hate that l33t shit.<---thats the first time i ever wrote in l33t.


being an avid computer geek since my dad introduced me to win95 and dos when i was 6, i kinda hate anything that doesnt make sense. Why dont people just come up with an actual language to use on the internet instead of a play with letters,numbers, and symbols?

oh and about the flagship question, why dont you buy technology from a certain supergiant local?


Title: New Topic
Post by: Culture20 on July 23, 2005, 06:30:40 pm
being an avid computer geek since my dad introduced me to win95 and dos when i was 6, i kinda hate anything that doesnt make sense. Why dont people just come up with an actual language to use on the internet instead of a play with letters,numbers, and symbols?
Because "pwned" was such a common misspelling of "owned" that it because the norm for gamers.  Language is mutable, and somewhat uncontrollable in its mutations; it's rather easy to add something new, but you never know how long it will last.  "pwned" will probably last for some time, but I expect that most of those typing "l33t" will grow out of it eventually, as it seems to be a province of the young.


Title: New Topic
Post by: Zeus Legion on July 23, 2005, 08:02:48 pm
It's largely used for irony now -- the double humiliation of mocking someone and mocking them in such a lame fashion.  Telling someone that they've been "h4x0r3d" really conveys something that "hacked" doesn't; likewise "pwn" to "own," "r0x0r3d" to "rocked" and so forth.

And if Window 95 was already out when you were 6, you really shouldn't try to act like an old pro, son.

stufft!


Title: New Topic
Post by: Megagun on July 23, 2005, 08:21:57 pm
It's largely used for irony now -- the double humiliation of mocking someone and mocking them in such a lame fashion.  Telling someone that they've been "h4x0r3d" really conveys something that "hacked" doesn't; likewise "pwn" to "own," "r0x0r3d" to "rocked" and so forth.

And if Window 95 was already out when you were 6, you really shouldn't try to act like an old pro, son.

stufft!

Bah. Why do people always happen to post the stuff I wanted to post just BEFORE me? :(
Life's a bitch.. :P

Quote
being an avid computer geek since my dad introduced me to win95 and dos when i was 6, i kinda hate anything that doesnt make sense. Why dont people just come up with an actual language to use on the internet instead of a play with letters,numbers, and symbols?

Why don't people just use apostrophes, capitals at the start of their sentences, and why can't they just use commas the right way?

Okayokayokay.. I'm only 16 years old... But I've been playing SC2 and other games since.. well.. the original (eventually mastering english because of said games) AND I've got experience with a C64! Beat that! :)


Title: New Topic
Post by: Serosis on July 24, 2005, 04:48:41 am
Quote
It's largely used for irony now -- the double humiliation of mocking someone and mocking them in such a lame fashion.  Telling someone that they've been "h4x0r3d" really conveys something that "hacked" doesn't; likewise "pwn" to "own," "r0x0r3d" to "rocked" and so forth.

And if Window 95 was already out when you were 6, you really shouldn't try to act like an old pro, son.

stufft!

and to anybody who followed suit


FUCK YOU


Title: New Topic
Post by: Serosis on July 24, 2005, 04:49:27 am
i really dont give a shit what anybody thinks about that, i am never posting on this one again.


Title: New Topic
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 24, 2005, 06:48:50 am
"There is NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY"

There isn't? So if everyone was gay, how long do you think the species would last? Two genders = offspring = survival for humans. It is evolutionary, my dear watson.


"Get that out of your vocabulary"

You're going to force the world to stop using the word "gay"? Well, good luck then.


"Why dont people just come up with an actual language to use on the internet instead of a play with letters,numbers, and symbols?"

Smart people use language, dum bastards type out crap.


"Life's a bitch.."

Too true.


"so if you want to really have longevity, you really need to learn how to fight on your own."

Space is a tough place, where wimps eat flaming plasma death.


"FUCK YOU"

Translation: F[_](I<  U


Title: New Topic
Post by: Halleck on July 24, 2005, 07:01:49 am
Deus, are you trying to start a flame war? It was bad enough in here already.

"So if everyone was gay, how long do you think the species would last? Two genders = offspring = survival for humans. It is evolutionary, my dear watson."

How is that a valid argument? People should be able to choose whoever they want as a partner. Your argument is ludicrous anyway, because not everyone is gay. So before you try and play the social darwanist, think about it for a second. How would being gay be "wrong"? Even if, as you say, it's evolutionary, a gay person who does not reproduce (keep in mind that some do) would effectively eliminate themselves from the human gene pool. So why do you even care?

Using the word "gay" to mean "stupid" is offensive, just as much as any ethnic slur. Even if you don't agree with the lifestyle, give them the respect they deserve as human beings and don't use the word gay like that.


Title: New Topic
Post by: meep-eep on July 24, 2005, 02:50:55 pm
If you're going to continue on this discussion, make a separate topic for it. In the StarBase Cafe.


Title: New Topic
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 24, 2005, 08:41:51 pm
"If you're going to continue on this discussion, make a separate topic for it. In the StarBase Cafe."

Sorry for the off-topic posting. I just have to reply to the charges made against said party, also known as me.


"Deus, are you trying to start a flame war? It was bad enough in here already."

No, often by flame nuking a brewing flame war battlefield, one can stun the potential combatants into pacifism. It's illogical, but it sometimes works. And while I've been gone for a couple weeks, I don't think things are that bad. Interesting topics, polls, no flooding, etc.


"How is that a valid argument?"

Humans need two genders to reproduce. Snails can get away with one, but we're not snails, so no dice. While I am not molluskophobic, I do think two is a good number. It's the smallest natural number that is not single. If one is the loneliest number and three's a crowd, then two is just right.


"People should be able to choose whoever they want as a partner."

I noticed you said "a partner". In doing so, you have insulted the civil rights of muslims, mormons, and men who are under the delusion that they are good looking enough to attract more than one woman at a single time.


"Your argument is ludicrous anyway, because not everyone is gay."

Which is why I used the word "If". Plus, if the world continues to increase it's usage of pesticides, plastics and similar environmental hazards, who can say what'll happen.


"How would being gay be "wrong"?"

There is no ultimate definition of "wrong" and "right", it's a personal preference. So a question like this will receive a different response, based on who is asked.


"So why do you even care?"

If you're asking me if I care that homosexuality exists, then the answer is "I don't". But if someone tells me that I cannot say the word "gay" in a context that makes it sound like "sappy" or "weak" or "cowardly", then you'll get a response from me. "Gay" means "merry" or "happy" and if someone wants to use it in a way that carries the three definitions above, or something similar, then I don't see the big deal. I also don't really care if saying "god damnit" insults overly religious people. You can tell people what they "can" and "cannot" say, but unless you've got some duct tape on hand, you won't be able keep their mouths shut.


"Using the word "gay" to mean "stupid" is offensive, just as much as any ethnic slur."

Then so is using "the lord's name in vain".


"and don't use the word gay like that."

I didn't, but I wouldn't necessarily be a bad person if I did. Why? Because gay means happy and if happy people become sad when you use the word "gay", a certain way, then they can't be insulted because getting insulted made them sad, which means they are no longer gay, and thus do not fall under that definition. How's that for logic. ;)


As far as the original topic, use escorts to protect your mark 1 early on. Upgrade your engines and jets and eventually get yourself one or two powerful forward guns with tracking systems and a million energy producing systems. Then you will be almost invincible.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Chrispy on July 25, 2005, 01:45:45 am
If you use the word 'gay' as an insult then it will presume like you are bashing homosexuality. You can say that it means happy but it's still offensive. Granted, you were not the one who said it, but I don't understand why your defending it.

Saying 'a partner' was not offensive because it was not bashing the ability to have more then one partner. Nobody said 'thats so dumb its muslim' or 'thats so stupid is poligomus'.

Its true humans need to genders to reproduce, but reproduction isnt a problem. The world is over populated, and homosexuality has been around since at least the ancient greeks. The population has grown since then, and is continuing to do so at a very quick rate.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Volka on July 25, 2005, 02:30:52 am
Yeesh. Sorry guys for the misunderstanding , I didn't mean to harm anybody with that word, that wasn't my intention.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Chrispy on July 25, 2005, 02:54:01 am
It rarely is.. just please, for the betterment of the world, stop it, and encourage others to.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 25, 2005, 03:04:57 am
"You can say that it means happy but it's still offensive."

But that is what it means. People can get offended at anything they want to. Believe me, it's easy.


"Granted, you were not the one who said it, but I don't understand why your defending it."

Because I don't think it was meant as an insult and it's getting kind of hard to say anything, without there being a good chance that you've accidentally used slang with some hidden meaning. Plus, it sucks being on the hot seat. No point in putting someone on it, unless he's done something that really is obnoxious. (As we've all seen not too long ago.)

Plus, by putting itself into the spot light of american politics and television/movies, it has made itself fair game. When you try and promote your viewpoint, there will be people who think it is stupid, or bad or else may be neutral or are favorable to it. Evangelists hook a few followers by advertising, but if they run into me, they'll get an ass full of opinions.

In the US, using "gay" in the way you've protested has become pretty common in the youngest generation. Why? Because seeing a lion pretend it's an elephant, when it obviously is not, is funny to younger viewers. They're probably not going to go and vote for or against gay marriage, but they'll say whatever seems funny or get's the point across. Younger generations have always been keen on pointing out the flaws in the viewpoints of their older predecessors.


"Its true humans need to genders to reproduce, but reproduction isnt a problem."

Of course not, you need reproduction to keep the species running. Homosexuallity is not so much of a "problem" either, but it is a malfuction of the process of progressing from one generation, to the next. If a strain does not find a suitable means of recreating itself, it terminates. This may sound cold, but it is just how things work in reality. And as the Klingons say, "Science is a dish best served cold." Hehe, just kiding, it was the Vulcans who said that. ;)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Chrispy on July 25, 2005, 04:10:28 am
Wow, I cant believe your actually defending the bashing of minorities. Thats what this is.

First of all it doenst matter how common something is. Rape is very common but its still ridiculously terrible. I know about over doing political correctness, but this is not, this is the bashing of a minority for who they are. Homosexuality doesnt hurt anyone, there is nothing wrong with it, and the individuals who are homosexual do not deserve this. Its common, its almost socially acceptable, but that doesnt make it right.

Imagine if your ears were green, and whenever something perverted came up they called the pervert a green-ear. And when you protested you received the reply 'I didnt mean it that way.' I'm sure you wouldnt appreciate being a name for a pervert.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Kaahtt on July 25, 2005, 04:50:45 am
ok, first off, this topic is totally gay.
 ;D

with that said, I post this picture from a famous online comic site

(http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/20050722a.gif)



Title: "vulcan"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 25, 2005, 05:39:24 am
"Wow, I cant believe your actually defending the bashing of minorities. Thats what this is."

I can't believe this is considered such a serious issue. I also cannot believe that you have now decided to use emotional cliched "cards", instead of making reasonable arguments. Perhaps you would like to define for me, what "minority" means? It seems that you are a minority on this board, because most of its participants are not from canada. I am a minority, because I do not believe in any god. Rich elitists are also a minority. Everyone is a minority and a majority, depending on the issue. If you want to spread a word that'll better the world, maybe it should be to think for yourself, instead of getting sucked into one of two rigid viewpoints, polarized from each other.


"Rape is very common but its still ridiculously terrible."

It is not necessary to make connections with violent crimes. Nothing horrible has happened, nor can it -- this is a discussion board.


"Homosexuality doesnt hurt anyone, there is nothing wrong with it, and the individuals who are homosexual do not deserve this. Its common, its almost socially acceptable, but that doesnt make it right."

I was informing you of a reality and if it was socially acceptable, it might not be quite as popular. If you can see it or not, demanding that people do what you say can often make them go the other extreme.


"Imagine if your ears were green, and whenever something perverted came up they called the pervert a green-ear. And when you protested you received the reply 'I didnt mean it that way.' I'm sure you wouldnt appreciate being a name for a pervert."

I would be happy because then I could tell you that story and inform you that I didn't really care that much what they said. In fact, if I wasn't self conscious of my green ears, I probably wouldn't even notice that someone said something that should insult me. Also, while I mentioned Vulcans in my last post, I think it should be noted that they do not have green ears, but pointy ones and green blood. They are also very good at staying in control of their emotions, which is good when debating something that is considered controversial.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Zeus Legion on July 25, 2005, 06:14:05 am
Four points regarding the word gay, as it was used above.

First, it's silly to try to defend it by claiming it just means happy.  Gays appropriated the term and destroyed its old meaning.  The gay old days where the word could be used in poetry are long gone.

Second, the word is not a slur per se -- after all "gay" is a name gays themselves appropriated.  What is offensive about it is that the word has been linked with various bad attributes.  So, it's about as offensive as saying that you were "man-handled" or that someone is a "testosterone freak" or that a coward is behaving "womanishly."  Maybe it's a little different, since gays are an "oppressed class" (at least to some degree, especially in the Arab world).  

Third, it's rich in meaning in the way some other slurs aren't.  For example, saying "Stop being such a Jew" is offensive but also poor in meaning -- it just means "stop being so greedy."  But saying "Playing on Android is gay" really says more than any one-word substitute.  What would you substitute?  Lame?  (An offensive word to the disabled, I should point out.)  But lame is hardly a synonym.  It lacks the accusation of non-manliness and doesn't quite capture the same accusation of frivolity.

Fourth, like "lame" then word "gay" has really become detached from its original meaning.  Most people use "gay" without even thinking of homosexuals, just as they use "lame" without thinking of the disabled.

I personally don't use slurs ever, and use profanity as sparingly as possible.  But I don't think you guys should jump all over him for using it.  It's just a word.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Megagun on July 25, 2005, 11:40:20 am
Okay, so I won't bother commenting about this all "gay" is evil/not evil when used in blabla way..

Anyways, did you know homosexuality is common in a LOT of species? Chimpanzees use it to kill off stresses, and so do many other species you can find here on Earth. Even Octopusses!


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: harth1026 on July 25, 2005, 03:18:40 pm
In Jurassic Park, we are told that some species of frogs are able to change from one gender to another in a single sex environment in order to have new generations of the species.  This is one case when being gay is good for the species.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Death 999 on July 25, 2005, 04:52:57 pm
Also, homosexuals in the wild tend to help out raising their siblings' children, so it may be evolutionarily advantageous to have, say, 2 straight kids and 1 gay one. The kids of your 2 straight kids will have extra support from your gay kid. So, don't rush to call it a 'malfunction'. Evolution wouldn't tolerate it if it were that bad.

Anyway, it might not be your genes which determine whether you're gay, but your mother's: she has a gene which gives each of her children a chance of being gay. If that's the case, you can't breed it out by keeping the gays from breeding (phew for those who think homosexuality is good); you could only breed it out by preventing those who have gay children from breeding. Yoiks!

There are lots of other ways it could arise, and only a few of them could be called 'malfunction'.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Cronos on July 25, 2005, 04:59:12 pm
Quote
Of course not, you need reproduction to keep the species running. Homosexuallity is not so much of a "problem" either, but it is a malfuction of the process of progressing from one generation, to the next. If a strain does not find a suitable means of recreating itself, it terminates.

False.

Homosexual tendancies have been observed in other species. It's been found to be as prevalent in Bonobos and Dolphins as much as it is prevalent in Humans.

Specifically in humans, it's been found that a familial gene that increases the likelihood of homosexuality also increased the fertility rate of said family, having roughly 1 - 2 more children on average then other similar families not possessing the gene.

The frequency of the gene however only appears to account for 1/3 of homosexuals prevalent in the population. It would appear that homosexual tendencies can be as much nature as it is nurture (social/developmental influences etc).

That being said, Freedom of Speech FTW! Within the bounds of board rules of course :)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 25, 2005, 05:45:11 pm
If it were very beneficial, it would probably be more common, with a gay nursery class or the like (maybe it is in other species or maybe not).

Personally, I don't think it is a chain getting passed on, but more of an anomaly that come up every now and then (like many other things). It is probably more common when some environmental issues (as in glowing green toxic waste, not upbringing or whatever) come into play (which cause other things to happen that nobody likes, such as cancer). While it's not necessarily a destructive force, it might not bring any great advantages. But evolution is not a conscious force, so some mutations form something new and others don't go anywhere (but that doesn't mean they won't appear again at random).

As science explores how human genes actually work, more answers to questions will come in. Until then, just remember to keep politics out of science.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Arne on July 25, 2005, 06:12:37 pm
Here follows an attempt to answer the question why people write in 1337 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet):

0. Originally it was a way to get pass word filters on BBS (for illegal downloads and such). Spammers seem to use some sort of form of 1337 to get pass email filters too.

1. People (ages 12-18?) thinks it's cool and elite.

2. It's a sort of sarcasm imitating point #1. This has gotten kind of old.

3. It's a sort of sarcasm imitating point #2.


...as for the word 'gay' I'm guilty of using it with a negative connotation (describing a weird anomal).
I wouldn't say no to a harem full of bisexual girls though... (but harems are one of those things that's only good in theory, in reality you have like 20 conspiring girls unloading wave after wave of PMS on you.)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 25, 2005, 08:16:50 pm
I don't think "cya" or "brb" or other abreviations are that bad for IM, because not everyone can type that fast. Horribly misspelling full length words is just useless and difficult to decode, though.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: TiLT on July 25, 2005, 08:19:25 pm
Reading this thread made my IQ drop by at least 30 points.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 25, 2005, 08:42:22 pm
After mine dropped into the negative range, I stopped counting.

But hey, at least now you have all the details on homosexual animal societies. ;)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Zeus Legion on July 25, 2005, 08:51:18 pm
Homosexual tendancies have been observed in other species. It's been found to be as prevalent in Bonobos and Dolphins as much as it is prevalent in Humans.

You mean like bonobo hair dressers? ;)

My understanding is that while sodomy (as in the male-on-male sex act) is quite common in nature -- males that cannot get females rape other males as a means of establishing dominance in many mammalian species -- homosexuality (as in exclusive same-sex intercourse) is quite, quite rare.  There are some cases (I remember hearing about gay penguins), but not so many.

For what it's worth, bonobos just screw anything and everything in every possible way.  They are wildly incestuous among other things.  I'm not sure that they should be our model of healthy living.  But again, bonobos seldom are homosexual -- rather, they're just very very randy.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Gay on July 25, 2005, 10:18:04 pm
If you are a gay, whi didnt you just incarnate as a girl instead?


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Death 999 on July 26, 2005, 04:31:15 pm
Because God wanted you to be gay, not a girl. Duh.

(I can spell, really..)
(hey, you can modify posts without a note now! Does that change once there is a response? Hmm...)
(Okay, now that's weird. When do you get a note and when don't you?)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: harth1026 on July 26, 2005, 05:38:56 pm
I can truthfully state that this is the gayest thread on this forum.

The justification that gay people have for being gay is that God made them that way.  Well, God made obese people too yet everywhere you go there are fat people that are fighting that urge to eat ice cream.  There are God-created alcoholics struggling each day to stay away from beer.  There are people out there with learning disabilities that God gave them in school doing their best to undo what God did to them.  I'm a fat stupid alcoholic.  God created me that way so I should accept it.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Halleck on July 27, 2005, 08:22:17 am
Why are you comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or obesity? They're just not the same.

A better comparison would be to gender, or skin tone. Do you see black people struggling their whole lives to be white? (Michael Jackson does not count here).

The answer is no. That's the way they were born. They accept it as part of who they are, and others have no right to ridicule them.

The same applies to homosexuality.

Or are you a racist too?


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: VOiD on July 27, 2005, 01:20:25 pm
Do you see black people struggling their whole lives to be white?
Observation: even among some of the most ardent white racists, it's still considered beautiful to have a tan. Go figure.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Gay on July 27, 2005, 02:58:58 pm
Well, if it is mutual I guess it is okay, but dont expect other males to be a stupid gay like you.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: harth1026 on July 27, 2005, 03:23:34 pm
Why are you comparing homosexuality to alcoholism or obesity? They're just not the same.
You can say that if you believe that to be true.  However, I'm just making a point that the one argument gays have about why they're gay isn't really a good argument.  But I'm not really arguing for or against them.  They should just come up with a better argument.  Like alcoholism and obsesity, homosexuality is partially genetic and partially choice.  You can choose to face the challenge provided to you, or you can just live with it.  Most people fight alcoholism and obesity because they're not healthy or socially accepted.  Homosexuality is not socially accepted (but that's changing of course) and whether or not you believe it's a way of life that is good for the species is a different debate for another day.

On a brighter note, if wasn't for homosexuality, we wouldn't have lesbians.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Gay on July 27, 2005, 03:28:48 pm
We dont need lesbians, but bisexual girls are okay, so that you can stay with more than one girl.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 27, 2005, 04:03:23 pm
Melanin, Race and Homosexuality are all pretty unrelated, with the exception of one broad category -- Genetics. A lot of things are determined by your genes, so this is all kind of pointless. If you remind someone of somebody he doesn't like, you might be treated unfairly. Homosexuality at least has the advantage of being invisible, unless it is made otherwise. And hey, you've insulted people for their genes in this thread. If you say that gays are not "stupid" and that it is insulting to say so, how do you think that makes Retarded individuals feel?


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Gay on July 27, 2005, 04:23:23 pm
What is wrong with that?

Eat better food, and fuck girls instead. I am sure that will improve your genes.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Death 999 on July 27, 2005, 04:39:43 pm
Nothing will improve your genes. You're stuck with the genes you have (short of radical invasive medical procedures which don't exist yet).

Now, given your 'go, women!' approach, why are you taking the name gay?

Anonymous Coward.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 27, 2005, 04:45:26 pm
"short of radical invasive medical procedures which don't exist yet"

You mean minor ge-netic mod-i-fications? Har. . .Har. . .Haarrr.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: harth1026 on July 27, 2005, 05:52:18 pm
So why do we have a thread on this forum debating homosexuality?  It seems kinda screwed up that we would go from talking about cyborg mode to how black people are like homosexuals.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Culture20 on July 27, 2005, 07:33:29 pm
(but harems are one of those things that's only good in theory, in reality you have like 20 conspiring girls unloading wave after wave of PMS on you.)
I heard somewhere that groups of women that live together (harems, convents, etc) end up having their cycles together after many years.  I suppose that could be worse though; one big powderkeg...   :-\


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 27, 2005, 09:00:33 pm
There are so many strawmen in this thread I'd swear I was at a scarecrow convention.

The thing that boils my blood about American "liberals" and "conservatives" can be summed up thusly:  people whom you don't know and will never meet are engaging in activites that don't involve you.  So why do you care?  So long as nobody is being hurt or exploited, it's absolutely none of your business.  In fact, there is no way it could possibly be any LESS your business.  Why are we talking about it at all?

As for the "incident" that sparked this discussion:  Deus_Siddis, you said something that was deemed by other forum-goers to be offensive, so much so that it completely derailed the topic at hand, and moderators had to step in.  You now have a choice: be a good neighbour and avoid using said language in a public forum in the future, or be a bad neighbour and keep using said language, despite the fact that doing so is obviously disruptive.  I would posit that such a decision would not be a terribly difficult one to make.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: harth1026 on July 27, 2005, 10:01:30 pm
So long as nobody is being hurt or exploited, it's absolutely none of your business. In fact, there is no way it could possibly be any LESS your business. Why are we talking about it at all?
Cause we're all 'gay' and we have nothing better to talk about.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 27, 2005, 10:44:32 pm
"The thing that boils my blood about American "liberals" and "conservatives" can be summed up thusly:  people whom you don't know and will never meet are engaging in activites that don't involve you."

Then you agree that people should not interject themselves into other affairs and tell people what can and cannot be said?


"In fact, there is no way it could possibly be any LESS your business.  Why are we talking about it at all?"

Obesity is not so much my business either, but I might talk about it here and there. I talk about it, because someone might bring up an opinion about it and I then give my opinion (sometimes jokingly). How is what we talk about your business?


"As for the "incident" that sparked this discussion:  Deus_Siddis, you said something that was deemed by other forum-goers to be offensive, so much so that it completely derailed the topic at hand, and moderators had to step in."

I probably should have clarrified that I was not really talking about morality. But I didn't bring up the issue and since I do not have telepathy, I do not know what may offend some forum followers. Even so, there are those who agree with me on some areas and some who do not agree. I can live with the opinions of people who do not agree with me, often times. Can you? And anyhu, if I "sparked" this offshoot, I certainly didn't force anybody else to come here and chat. Is it my fault that people wanted to give their opinions as well?


"You now have a choice: be a good neighbour and avoid using said language in a public forum in the future, or be a bad neighbour and keep using said language, despite the fact that doing so is obviously disruptive."

Ah, the old "your either with us, or against us" speech. I think you've overlooked the fact that this is a very large forum with lot's of members and viewpoints. It's not a liberals only club, nor the opposite. It is also a forum which has had some pretty big and sometimes heated political debates. This is not "disruption", it is discussion. Disruption is when people flood or use other cheating methods to make it so you can't have a real discussion. So if you only want to hear one viewpoint, never leave your house/apartment and don't dial up. Speaking of disruption, why are you so negative? Is it a joking persona thing or are you serious?


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Mr._Jiggles on July 27, 2005, 11:04:37 pm
I don't really have nothing against homosexuals. But im walking to a Baskin Robbins 31 Flavors in San Francisco and this naked gay couple walk in front of me into the 31 flavors. There were children in there and know there parents have to explain this to them. i swear some of those kids were 5 years old. They had no right to walk in their naked and scar those childrens minds like that. Plus the homosexual couple made a scene when the manager refused to serve them since they were totally naked and were in a family place. My god anybody who defends this is mentally disabled. I have nothing against them but when someone shows me their lifestyle like that i want to cover them in gasoline and light them on fire. Also my little brother who is 8 was with me. That was not f*ckin cool to explain this to him.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 27, 2005, 11:45:20 pm
Then you agree that people should not interject themselves into other affairs and tell people what can and cannot be said?

Your strawman-making ability is unsurpassed, but that's not what I said; people should not interject themselves into private matters that are obviously none of their business; e.g., two consenting adults engaging in activites that do not impact anyone besides themselves.  However, public discourse on an Internet forum is, by definition, everyone's business, by virtue of the fact that it's held in public.  I have enough trouble defending the things I DO say, please don't put me in the position of defending things I didn't say.  For one, I don't know where I'd find the time.

How is what we talk about your business?

Because you're posting about it in a public forum that I read, perhaps?  You're either breathtakingly ignorant or you're being obtuse on purpose.  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter, in which case, knock it the fuck off and speak plainly.  The issue is not a complicated one.

Fact:  you said things that got people pissed off, unrelated to the topic being discussed.  The polite thing to do would be to apologize for hurting people's feelings and attempt to not hurt them again.  Claiming that others don't have the right to be offended and other such nonsense is jackasery of the highest order.  Some people are more thin-skinned than others.  Cope.

I probably should have clarrified that I was not really talking about morality. But I didn't bring up the issue and since I do not have telepathy, I do not know what may offend some forum followers.

How about when they explicitly tell you so, after the fact?  Can you tell then?  Sweet zombie jesus, this is not that hard a concept to grasp...

Ah, the old "your either with us, or against us" speech.

No, it was the "man up, apologize, and stop being a juvenile, argumentative asshat" speech, but I can see how one could get the two confused.

I think you've overlooked the fact that this is a very large forum with lot's of members and viewpoints. It's not a liberals only club, nor the opposite. It is also a forum which has had some pretty big and sometimes heated political debates. This is not "disruption", it is discussion.

So, completely derailing threads is not disruptive?  In what universe?


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2005, 12:46:10 am
"Your strawman-making ability is unsurpassed"

That's just a flat out lie. I have never taken any callsign other than "Deus Siddis" on these forums. It wouldn't make much difference anyway, the IPs are monitored. If you can't stand other people who are not exactly like you, then that is your own challenge. You can't blame everything on me.


"I have enough trouble defending the things I DO say, please don't put me in the position of defending things I didn't say.  For one, I don't know where I'd find the time."

That's not what I was saying. My point was that you can't stop someone from using the word "gay" with a meaning other than happy or homosexual. Diverting a conversation to point out how evil that is, is not really necessary. But, Chrispy is allowed to make side comments and digressions if so he chooses. Others can do the same, but if things get too far off topic, things might get moved. That's what happened here and in a number of other topics (which I was not responsible for, believe it or not).


"Because you're posting about it in a public forum that I read, perhaps?"

I can say the same thing for myself. Someone posted, I commented. I've done the same on many topics (most were much lighter).


"You're either breathtakingly ignorant or you're being obtuse on purpose."

Is there a choice "C"?


"knock it the fuck off and speak plainly.  The issue is not a complicated one."

No, but apparently so are the instructions your psychiatrist gave you for opening your meds.


"Fact:  you said things that got people pissed off, unrelated to the topic being discussed.  The polite thing to do would be to apologize for hurting people's feelings and attempt to not hurt them again."

Well, then it seems you have a LOT of apologizing to do to a LOT of people on this forum (beyond this topic).


"Some people are more thin-skinned than others. Cope."

I am coping, are you?


"How about when they explicitly tell you so, after the fact?  Can you tell then?  Sweet zombie jesus, this is not that hard a concept to grasp..."

Then why haven't you grasped it?


"No, it was the "man up, apologize, and stop being a juvenile, argumentative asshat" speech, but I can see how one could get the two confused."

I apologize for sounding like I was making a moral judgement on homosexuallity on a public forum. On its own, homosexuality does not hurt anyone.


"So, completely derailing threads is not disruptive?  In what universe?"

I just commented on a comment. Then I had to back up what I had said because it had "sparked" another discussion. Now the whole thread has been moved and is no longer in the way of anything. This has happened many times on other topics. In its current location, this thread can only bother those who seek it out, be they thin skinned or not. Cope.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Gay on July 28, 2005, 01:01:30 am
I can accept that gays love me. Well who doesnt?, but I use females for sex, and males for war.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 28, 2005, 01:17:53 am
That's just a flat out lie. I have never taken any callsign other than "Deus Siddis" on these forums.

You misunderstood my meaning.  A "strawman argument" is a logical fallacy, whereby a person misrepresents the position of their opponent, then attacks the misrepresentation, sidestepping the actual argument.  I was claiming that you were engaging in that practice, not engaging in fraudulent posting.  Sorry for the confusion.

[...superfluous personal attacks ignored...]

Well, then it seems you have a LOT of apologizing to do to a LOT of people on this forum (beyond this topic).

I do?  Care to provide any examples?  I'm certainly not above practicing what I preach, but I do tend towards obliviousness on occasion.  Or were you just being rhetorical?

[...more superfluous personal attacks ignored...]

I apologize for sounding like I was making a moral judgement on homosexuallity on a public forum. On its own, homosexuality does not hurt anyone.

Very well, then.

I just commented on a comment. Then I had to back up what I had said because it had "sparked" another discussion. Now the whole thread has been moved and is no longer in the way of anything. This has happened many times on other topics. In its current location, this thread can only bother those who seek it out, be they thin skinned or not. Cope.

Fair enough, and as it should be.  Although it seems that topics like this one attract trolls like shit attracts flies, hopefully my fellow readers are savvy enough not to fall for it.  Flamewars aren't doing anyone any favours.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Defender on July 28, 2005, 02:31:46 am
mods: i have a request...lock this thread.

though i might have the freedom of speech to say or post "gay" whenever i feel like. i also have the respect, that if it "offends" a friend or fellow poster, i will refrain from using the offensive word. this was the sole reason of Chrispy's post and i should think by now that everyone who has an ounce of self control would repect his wishes regardless if they clash with your freedom.

its called respect...pass it along, ok? thank you.
~DEFIANT


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Gay on July 28, 2005, 02:43:16 am
I respect that gays fuck other gays.

But they should stay away from me, because I like to fuck girls.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2005, 02:53:11 am
"You misunderstood my meaning.  A "strawman argument" is a logical fallacy, whereby a person misrepresents the position of their opponent, then attacks the misrepresentation, sidestepping the actual argument.  I was claiming that you were engaging in that practice, not engaging in fraudulent posting.  Sorry for the confusion."

I thought you meant the kind of strawman that completes a task for someone, so that his name does not get involved (because it might damage his reputation or drive up the price of something during a negotiation). I'm not sure if I'm guilty of strawmanning (under your definition) anybody's arguement, or if everyone just assumed I was saying things that I hadn't or hadn't tried to. Either way, there was probably some of this on both sides.


"I do?  Care to provide any examples?  I'm certainly not above practicing what I preach, but I do tend towards obliviousness on occasion.  Or were you just being rhetorical?"

This thread and then these are some too:

http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2299.0

http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2365.0

http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2340.0

Granted, I don't think you really said anything bad in any of those, and you probably were not totally serious. Plus, I too work on freeware gaming projects as a hobby and I don't think those who aren't assisting can make demands (though I don't see why ideas and suggestions are so destructive). Just don't pretend to be the dean of manners and don't get on anybody else's case for lacking tact. Say what you want, but don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.


"Fair enough, and as it should be.  Although it seems that topics like this one attract trolls like shit attracts flies, hopefully my fellow readers are savvy enough not to fall for it.  Flamewars aren't doing anyone any favours."

As we've all seen, real trolls cannot be avoided, just banned. Flamewars are people lossing control of their emotions. If people can stay in control and see only what is being said (and not all the politics the media has given them), then even the most controversial threads can just remain discussions.

By the way, those "superfluous personal attacks" were just skirmishing. I joke about things more than I probably should. But when I'm being serious, I can keep things reasonable or I can use some color, depending on what the person I'm talking to is doing. And as stated above, I don't really care about what and how you said things to other people or to me, I just don't like getting threatened with being banned when I haven't done much and I don't see the point in getting lectured on the importance of avoiding egos, by someone who's broken some "thin skins". Anyway, no harm, no fowl. In a debate, only egos can be bruised.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: 0xDEC0DE on July 28, 2005, 03:30:11 am
I'm not sure if I'm guilty of strawmanning (under your definition) anybody's arguement, or if everyone just assumed I was saying things that I hadn't or hadn't tried to. Either way, there was probably some of this on both sides.

I'd say that more often than not, strawman arguments are made out of genuine misunderstanding of the opponent's position, rather than due to any malice or ill intent.  It happens; people tend to make arguments founded on unspoken assumptions that they assume their opponent shares, and when this isn't the case, it leads to misunderstandings.  e.g., I assumed you knew what I meant by "strawman", you assumed I meant something else, hence the discussion we're now having.  :)

This thread and then these are some too:
http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2299.0
http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2365.0
http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=2340.0

Re: the last two posts, noone bothered to fault me for what I said at the time (and I'd be curious to know what your objections to them are), and in the case of the last one, the parent poster even came back and laughed at the joke, so I'd posit that no apologies were necessary there.  As for the first one, getting him to blow his top wasn't exactly the intent, but I wasn't exactly trying to be nice to him, either, because I'm a cockbite.  And in all of the above cases, I did stay on-topic  ::)

Anyway, no harm, no fowl. In a debate, only egos can be bruised.

No fowl?  Are you calling me a chicken?  ;)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2005, 03:56:59 am
"I'd be curious to know what your objections to them are."

As stated above, I have none. My only point is that nobody uses sesame street manners, and sometimes people get offended. But if you offend someone, that doesn't mean that your wrong or that you need to take everything back (that's not to say you shouldn't take back something you didn't mean or clarify a point you made).


"No fowl?  Are you calling me a chicken?"

And what is wrong with being a chicken? They never hurt anyone. :)


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Mr._Jiggles on July 28, 2005, 04:35:18 am
Heh, glad this arguement is over. You guys going to be mortal enemies like the Kohr-Ah and the Kzer-Za? Wow it was really fun reading this garbage but now that your both done with your ego wars, can you please answer my question listed above.



Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Deus Siddis on July 28, 2005, 05:43:30 am
"Heh, glad this arguement is over. You guys going to be mortal enemies like the Kohr-Ah and the Kzer-Za?"

While I'm probably not real well liked anymore, there are no long term grudges, I don't think. Though I think this became more emotional than need be, I don't feel anything negative towards anybody -- doing so would just be ridiculous. The two paths will now fly their separate ways until we all meet again on the other side of the galaxy, during the next hot topic.


"Wow it was really fun reading this garbage but now that your both done with your ego wars, can you please answer my question listed above."

What question? You only asked if there would be grudges because of this thread.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Mr._Jiggles on July 28, 2005, 06:21:26 pm
Im not going to even bother to put the quote right here, *sigh* nevermind  >:(


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: The Real Zeus on November 10, 2005, 01:20:25 pm
Just want to remark here for the record that the guy using my handle is doing so without my consent and will be sued if or when I find him.



Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Ivan Ivanov on November 10, 2005, 01:50:36 pm
Just want to remark here for the record that the guy using my handle is doing so without my consent and will be sued if or when I find him.

Unless, you're the ancient Greek god of thunder, I don't think any court will listen to you.
I doubt you'd have a case even if you were, but then atleast you could fry them all with lightning.

Also, if you're not the god of thunder, you should watch for those damn time-travelling ancient Greeks, because they might want to sue you too.
Unless, you are a time-traveling ancient Greek yourself, in which case you shouldn't go outside on a rainy day, as I heard your gods are quite touchy when it comes to blesphemy.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Lucky on November 10, 2005, 04:16:33 pm
With the risk of being politically incorrect (or intrinsically ironic), I'd say that reviving a thread about  wether using the word "gay" is offensive or not to make a cooment like that is.. well gay1.

1No offence to gay people meant.


Title: Re: "gay"
Post by: Baltar on November 11, 2005, 05:23:27 am
With the risk of being politically incorrect (or intrinsically ironic), I'd say that reviving a thread about  wether using the word "gay" is offensive or not to make a cooment like that is.. well gay1.

1No offence to gay people meant.

...Fucking faggot.