As several people above have mentioned, LJ offers paid accounts that have many features free accounts do not (such as mobile posting, voice posting, space for several avatars, etc.) - LJ only recently started putting advertisements on users' journals, and even then, only for those who chose to have their free accounts upgraded to "Plus" status. Get your facts straight.
Know what? I can "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something i don't necessarily like or agree with without interference" (dictionary definition of tolerance), but does that mean I have to like it? No. Just because I choose not hang out with gay people does not make me a bigot. Neither does the fact the I do not enjoy hearing about it and would rather not have it said in my presence.
Do I hate gay people? No. Do I approve of what they do? No. One can hate the act without hating the person doing it - I refuse to judge people solely based on one facet of their lives. But there is a problem when people decide to define their existence based solely on that one thing, and then how else can you see them but how they choose to show themselves to you?
Y'know what? I'm sick of this shit. I am NO bigot. I don't care what other people do behind closed doors, and I quite frankly don't want to know what other people do behind closed doors - I don't think any less of people because they decide to make it public, but in the end, I just don't care and don't want to know. That's not bigotry - in fact, you go any farther and you've gone straight past tolerance and smack into approval. I'm sick of every time I want to relate a story to someone having to determine whether or not I want to say "oh yeah, *my wife* did this" because I don't want to rub it in people's faces that I'm a heterosexual married man. I'm afraid I might offend some gay marriage activist that I have marriage rights that they don't. Just everybody STFU and stop being so damn sensitive.
Does this or does this not seem reasonable? I think it's reasonable. It's a private server and you agree to their Terms of Service when you sign up, so whatever free speech you think you may have is restricted within the guidelines set down by Blizzard. Why then is there such an uproar over this kind of thing?
Then you would be right at home on a normal or non-role-playing server. The point of role-playing servers is to be able immerse yourself in a game, and real-world issues and topics just plain detract from it. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Would you go to a traditional Shakespearean play and want to see Romeo and Juliet burst into a modern rap song in the middle of the balcony scene, or have Hamlet replace his famous "to be or not to be" soliloquoy with a diatribe on the benefits of stem cell research? Of course not - that kind of stuff has no place in the setting at hand. Call me a purist, but if you're role-playing in a fictional universe, your character should be acting and talking in a manner that is consistent with the setting.
In any case, we're again talking about the public channels. If you wanna discuss real-life issues with your friends on guild channels or private channels or over TeamSpeak, then you're entitled to do so, but for Pete's sake, don't ruin the role-playing experience for the rest of us!
Yes. But it's not bigotry - you misread me. I think EVERYONE should keep their private lives private. I don't wanna hear gays telling me what they do in the bedroom anymore than they want to hear me telling them what *I* do in the bedroom. It's called a private life for a reason. If you wanna take that to mean that ONLY gay people should keep their private lives private and straight people shouldn't have to, then maybe YOU'RE the one who's bigoted. EVERYONE should keep it to themselves, not just gays. If that means that gay people stay in the closet, then yes it should be the case - AS LONG AS STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO THE SAME AND NOT MAKE PUBLIC WHAT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE. Coming out of the closet may be a source of pride for gay people, but in essence they're shoving their private lives in the faces of people who have no interest or desire to know about it.
Why don't more people agree with this? What happens in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom. And why must we define ourselves by who we choose to have sex with, have relationships with, etc.?
You bring up some very good points here: my S.O. had a grad school class with a couple of young black women who kept taking every issue discussed in class and turning it into a race issue. While I acknowledge that there still exist plenty of bigoted, racist, ignorant and intolerant people in this world, I also have to say that there is just as much bigotry, racism, ignorance and intolerance coming from those who claim it is happening to them! It's a simple case of making something an issue that doesn't need to be one!
Differ shmiffer. The game IS about enjoying yourself, but if you're role-playing correctly, what and who you know and what and who your character knows are two different things, or at least should come from totally different avenues. Make friends with players who have the same interest as you AS A PLAYER, but keep that in out-of-game forums or non-general channels. The in-game chat channels (and guilds and such) are reserved for your CHARACTERS and your IN-CHARACTER interactions. Out-of-game and off-topic issues, such as topics that concern the real world, should be kept in their respective venues. Keep it in a private channel, use TeamSpeak, talk about in online forums, but keep it out of General Chat channels, ESPECIALLY on RP servers.
Am I the only one who understands the concept of role-playing and RP servers?
Then society is at fault for making such a big deal about who people choose to have sex with. In a perfect world, where people are sensitive and don't concern themselves with matters that don't concern them and people keep their private lives properly private, this wouldn't be an issue at ALL. People wouldn't gay-bash not just because they don't hate gays but also because gays would keep their private lives private.
But this isn't a perfect world, and insensitivity and immaturity reign supreme. You call it bigotry, I call it a business doing their best to make money. When you accuse Blizzard of valuing one groups' money over anothers', that may be bigotry, but it's also capitalism. It's called finding your target audience and not letting the minority groups sway you from your projected goals. It may be exclusionary or insensitive, but in the end, it's what makes them the most money, and honestly, they're in the business of making money. They're not the federal government, where they HAVE disallow any and all discrimination - they're a private business and they're allowed to use whatever policies they wish in order to make money. If you live in this country and are part of the capitalist economy, you may not like it, but you have to agree that they're doing what works.
I wish you hadn't posted as AC because this is a great point to be making.
And to the people who inevitably come back with "well then why is homosexuality so prevalent in the animal kingdom?" Well then maybe the animals who do it are just as "maladaptive" as the humans who do. It still doesn't change the fact that sex, at its core, is about procreation - that's why guys spooge and women cream. It's all about paving the way for future generations to be born. The fact that sex also feels really good doesn't change the fact that "insert Tab P into Slot V" is the way that nature intended and just because someone at some point found that if you "insert Tab P into Slot M (or AH, or what-have-you)" it feels just as good doesn't mean it's also the way nature intended.
Teamspeak is an out-of-game function. I'm all for TeamSpeak because it gives players a way to keep general off-topic chat out of the general on-topic chat channels. And if you want to group together with your friends, significant others, whatever, that's fine - I do it myself from time to time. But it's STILL a game, whether you do it with your friends or not. And if you're playing a role-playing server, while on the in-game chat channels and in-game in general, you should still remain in character (in a pure and perfect world, at least).
Don't get me wrong: Blizzard should be taking action against those who make inflammatory comments towards people who choose not to distance their online character from their own real-life self. But with homosexuality being such a hot-button and inflammatory issue in and of itself, I think they're well within their rights to preclude any kind of behavior that would lead to said immature and insensitive behavior.
Out of context, two different points, argumentative, whatever.
While those were two different points I was making (read the context), I can still make it without your insipid "ERROR": people try to bring real-life into a fantasy game and then they have to perform that real-life act in public (within the game) in areas where if they performed it in real life would not be condoned by our society. If you're gonna argue that WoW is an extension of real life and that you should be allowed to perform real-life acts like sex and love within it, then you should at least stick to the implicit code of decency that says "don't have sex in public (public lewdness)" and "don't have sex on someone else's property without their permission (trespassing and public lewdness)". Thing is, within WoW, it is impossible to adhere to those two guidelines.
TO HELL with people who possess the courage to damn the same people you're paying $15/mo -- and continuing to pay $15/mo. Or have you already quit? If so, this was misleading:
Part frustration, part satire, part sarcasm - GOD, things like this are just so lost on people. The internet does NOTHING to convey tone of voice or inflection or any of the other subtle tell signs that show a person isn't 100% serious.
And oh yeah, I forgot to show my credentials as a prophet of said GOD saying that I actually have the power to condemn people and make it stick... [EXTREME SARCASM]
TO HELL with those who can't tell the difference between "finicky" and "outraged at the sheer bigotry of it all".
I can tell the difference. If you want to be outraged and call it bigotry, you're welcome to do so. I personally just don't care, and would like to continue playing WoW (answering your question above) without hearing the offended minority tell me why I should be offended when I'm not. Does this make me a bigot? I don't care. If you have a right to be offended, I have a right to not care.
First off, it's "you're". Second off, I didn't forget them - I believe "or whatever" includes anyone not hetero- or homo-, as I listed first and second. I could have written bi- or trans-, but I didn't for the sake of brevity.
your saying that we should just ignore how we were born and choose a sex or leave WoW?
Yes! My wife hates the fact that in Tony Hawk's American Wasteland you can't play Story Mode as a female character. So she doesn't play it. She can bitch about it, but nobody is forcing her to play the game. Activision had NO obligation to anyone to make that feature available, but the consumer also has the right to be annoyed by it. Does Activision have to change its game to suit my wife's tastes when obviously the game sold well enough without doing so? No. Does she have a right to be annoyed? Yes. Does that mean that because a select group of people are annoyed with what could be perceived as an exclusionary tactic on the part of a manufacturer of games to a niche market mean that the product is completely wrong and should be boycotted? No - this is the main point of my argument. You make your choice and I'll make mine. And lest you forget my other point, WoW is role-playing - it shouldn't be a complete extension of your actual self anyway - it's not real life!
because when comes down to it many children younger than 5 have to deal with this...
BUZZ! I'm stopping you right there. WoW is rated M for Mature. 5-year-olds have NO business playing it.
society just needs to accept that since people like myself exist...
Sure, public society should be more sensitive to diversions from the median (mathematically and statistically speaking - I don't mean that in any kind of a derogatory way), but again, we're not talking about a public society - we're talking about a private society. If WoW wants to be exclusionary for whatever reason (hey, maybe it would cost too much money to completely rework the game to allow genederless characters - who knows?), that's their right as a private entity. You don't have to like it, but others don't have to be deprived of enjoying it just because you are.
Is that in response to that particular quote? Cuz I was using WoW as a fer-instance of keeping what happens in the bedroom in the bedroom. In any case, you don't have programmers or American sports (apart from Capture the Flag) or gastronomes (whatever the hell those are) in WoW, and if you're on an RP server, then no, that shouldn't be there. If you're role-playing, your character shouldn't have any damn clue what programming or sports or gastronomes are, so why form a guild around it?
1) The reasoning for their decision was NOT in the matter of judging the lifestyle, but rather that they know their customer base and they know that there are those who would not be able to handle the information of one's sexual orientation in a mature manner. It's more like saying, "Look, I know you're homosexual, but when you're at my house, I'd appreciate if you didn't mention it because otherwise my friends will yell and scream and shout at you and might try to beat you within an inch of your life." It's the equivalent of dousing the match instead of the getting rid of the gunpowder - defusing the situation before it has a chance to combust.
2) Your quote is fine for the "live and let live" argument, but inside a MMOG is NOT the "privacy of your own home" - it's within the public of Blizzard's server, and obviously, different rules must apply.
But for the love of God, let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money.
If you don't like something, you don't have to like it - that's your choice. But the rest of us who do like it are entitled to like it and should be allowed to like it without hearing all the reasons why we shouldn't - that's OUR choice.
TO HELL with people who are getting hung up on this kind of bullshit. We've got wars, people starving, rising temperatures, political unrest and corruption, rising health care costs, rising costs of living, rising crime rates, rising stupidity and obesity (though those have more attainable solutions than the others - start thinking and stop eating!)... There are plenty more things in the world to be focused and riled up over besides whether fictional characters are allowed to pork each other or not.
TO HELL with Blizzard for their intolerant tolerance policy. Take a stand and do something about the players who don't play by your rules - don't cut off a nose to spite a face.
TO HELL with immature intolerant WoW players who can't be bothered to live and let live and allow people to make whatever choices they wish without ridiculing, tormenting, and otherwise being assholes toward people who happen to think or act differently from your perverted view of the normal world.
TO HELL with pathetic lifeless types who have to bring real life into a fantasy game. It's fantasy for a reason - it shouldn't be like real life. Role-playing has its uses and applications, but in the end, it's pretending and doesn't mean anything in the real world. Your avatar in WoW shouldn't be an exact extension of you in an online game anyway - that's what role-playing is: being someone you aren't.
TO HELL with people trying to insert sexuality (hetero, homo, or otherwise) into a situation that has no place for it. Can you give birth to little Taurens/Undeads/Orcs/Trolls/Humans/Dwarves/Gnomes/ Night Elves in WoW? No. Can you contract a sexually transmitted disease in WoW? No. Can you form any kind of meaningful, lasting bond with anyone that exists entirely within the game and doesn't require actual real-life interaction in order to keep it from getting stale because of limitations of software and hardware? No. It's a game and it's a computer - a data stream can't cuddle next to you in bed, a purely online buddy can't massage your shoulders, and an avatar can't make you breakfast the next morning. Get over it and keep what you do in the bedroom IN THE BEDROOM. Last I checked, you can't own a house in WoW, so if you're making hay, you're either doing it in public, or you're doing it on someone else's property without their permission - and neither of those is condoned in our society.
TO HELL with people forgetting that World of Warcraft is privately owned, privately operated, and they can choose whatever the hell they god damn jolly well please to have going on in their game. If they choose not to allow certain things, they are within their rights to do so. If you have a problem with it, LEAVE! Don't give them your money. But for the love of God, let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money. Consumerism is a choice - take responsibility for your purchases and don't expect the manufacturers to tailor a wide-ranged product to your narrow views.
I don't agree that "faith" is evil, merely that man has a knack for taking a good idea and driving it into the dirt. Common sense is on its way out, and reason isn't far behind it - I wonder what bandwagon is next on the horizon for all the intellectual elitists to jump onto...
I already covered that. I don't think ID or creationism has a place in a science class, but I don't think the ideas should go unlearned in a general sense, like perhaps a philosophy class, or one on religious studies that encompasses many origin beliefs (myths, creation stories, call them what you will). And I'm not talking about making the kids believe them, but they should at least be aware that there are people who believe them... and they shouldn't be taught that people who believe are ancient neanderthals either.
You said if anyone told YOU that statement, not your kids. You're an educated person who has come to his own conclusion about what he believes of the origins of the universe and of our species. If a person tries to get you to believe what they believe, then yes, by all means, you have every right to defend what you believe. But in our scenario, you opted not to say "that's nice" and let them believe what they want, and instead you turned right around and attempted to force YOUR beliefs on them before they had a chance to.
Y'know what? There's nothing wrong with letting someone believe something that you think is complete bullshit. Hell, that's what tolerance is all about. As long as they're not foisting their beliefs on you, there's no reason for you to do the same first.
And while we're on the subject, what, exactly, is the harm in someone believing that the earth is only 6000 years old? (Not saying I believe it, but just asking the harm in believing it.) Does it really make a difference in how we live our lives now if the earth is 6000 years old or 6,000,000,000 years old or 6 seconds old (though that last one would give some pause)? We're here, we're conscious, we've got a lot of things more important ahead of us than where we may or may not have been - let's stop living in the past!
However, because of this debate -- and I can attest that this is happening because my wife had it happen to her in one of her grad school classes -- people who profess a belief in creationism or ID (not necessarily in the context of whether or not it should be taught in science classes) are being ridiculed for holding what others feel to be an outdated dinosaur of a belief. As if everyone has to believe in evolution (or the Big Bang, or whatever) or they're ignorant, fooling themselves, an idiot, a moron, a neanderthal, whatever. "How can you still believe in that???" is a very dangerous thing to hear when we're talking about someone's religious beliefs, especially in a country where one of our essential freedoms is the freedom of religion.
I hate to burst your bubble here, but religion does not have a monopoly on value systems. The two are not equal, which is what you just stated.
I used religious beliefs as a "fer-instance". Values systems also include sexual morality, etiquette, basic human decency, etc. I only mentioned religion because that seems to be the crux of the ID debate.
We do have a non-religious value system. It's codified in our laws. We can teach those values in school without stepping on parental toes.
Do NOT get me started on the dangers inherent in legislating morality. And I'm not talking about stepping on parental toes - I'm talking about replacing parental feet altogether. I'm not talking about children who get taught by both their parents and the schools - I'm talking about the children whose parents are too lazy or too apathetic to teach the kids themselves and leave it all for the schools to do. Parents who take responsibility in their child's upbringing, whether it be teaching good moral lessons, taking an active interest in the media their kids are exposed to, helping them to direct them in the way they should go - those are the ones I have no problem with. It's the parents who plop their kids in front of the TV or computer, send them off to school, and expect the schools to teach them everything they should - those are the ones I'm terrified of, the ones who make me reluctant to bring a child into this world.
As for belief in creationism, that's fine, believe whatever you want. If you believe God set up the laws of physics and set the universe in motion knowing the outcome, that is a form of creationism, and I'll buy that as a possibility (though not scientifically testable).
That is what I believe... I don't believe the absolute literal translation of the Bible, because in many ways I'm a skeptic, and while I do believe it be inspired by God, I don't believe that the writers didn't have their own slant or bias to it. And really, who would have been there at the beginning of creation besides God to see it?
As for the rest of your reply, I thought you were doing well up to that point. But it's this extremist point of view that makes the debate oh-so-hotbutton. "Oh, well, if you believe creationism over evolution, then you don't believe in any science and you should just go live in a cave somewhere." With so much uncertainty in this world, the human mind can't come down on one side or the other without there being glaring conflicts and so there has to be some point of reconciliation between what is known and what is unknown. Unfortunately, with the way our species is so polarized in its thinking, it has to be either one way or the other - there's no way for the two to coexist without ridicule from people on either side of the debate.
As for your last point, to quote Douglas Adams, "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
Slashdot Mirror
As several people above have mentioned, LJ offers paid accounts that have many features free accounts do not (such as mobile posting, voice posting, space for several avatars, etc.) - LJ only recently started putting advertisements on users' journals, and even then, only for those who chose to have their free accounts upgraded to "Plus" status. Get your facts straight.
Know what? I can "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something i don't necessarily like or agree with without interference" (dictionary definition of tolerance), but does that mean I have to like it? No. Just because I choose not hang out with gay people does not make me a bigot. Neither does the fact the I do not enjoy hearing about it and would rather not have it said in my presence.
Do I hate gay people? No. Do I approve of what they do? No. One can hate the act without hating the person doing it - I refuse to judge people solely based on one facet of their lives. But there is a problem when people decide to define their existence based solely on that one thing, and then how else can you see them but how they choose to show themselves to you?
Y'know what? I'm sick of this shit. I am NO bigot. I don't care what other people do behind closed doors, and I quite frankly don't want to know what other people do behind closed doors - I don't think any less of people because they decide to make it public, but in the end, I just don't care and don't want to know. That's not bigotry - in fact, you go any farther and you've gone straight past tolerance and smack into approval. I'm sick of every time I want to relate a story to someone having to determine whether or not I want to say "oh yeah, *my wife* did this" because I don't want to rub it in people's faces that I'm a heterosexual married man. I'm afraid I might offend some gay marriage activist that I have marriage rights that they don't. Just everybody STFU and stop being so damn sensitive.
Does this or does this not seem reasonable? I think it's reasonable. It's a private server and you agree to their Terms of Service when you sign up, so whatever free speech you think you may have is restricted within the guidelines set down by Blizzard. Why then is there such an uproar over this kind of thing?
Thank you for posting this.
Then you would be right at home on a normal or non-role-playing server. The point of role-playing servers is to be able immerse yourself in a game, and real-world issues and topics just plain detract from it. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Would you go to a traditional Shakespearean play and want to see Romeo and Juliet burst into a modern rap song in the middle of the balcony scene, or have Hamlet replace his famous "to be or not to be" soliloquoy with a diatribe on the benefits of stem cell research? Of course not - that kind of stuff has no place in the setting at hand. Call me a purist, but if you're role-playing in a fictional universe, your character should be acting and talking in a manner that is consistent with the setting.
In any case, we're again talking about the public channels. If you wanna discuss real-life issues with your friends on guild channels or private channels or over TeamSpeak, then you're entitled to do so, but for Pete's sake, don't ruin the role-playing experience for the rest of us!
Yes. But it's not bigotry - you misread me. I think EVERYONE should keep their private lives private. I don't wanna hear gays telling me what they do in the bedroom anymore than they want to hear me telling them what *I* do in the bedroom. It's called a private life for a reason. If you wanna take that to mean that ONLY gay people should keep their private lives private and straight people shouldn't have to, then maybe YOU'RE the one who's bigoted. EVERYONE should keep it to themselves, not just gays. If that means that gay people stay in the closet, then yes it should be the case - AS LONG AS STRAIGHT PEOPLE DO THE SAME AND NOT MAKE PUBLIC WHAT SHOULD BE KEPT PRIVATE. Coming out of the closet may be a source of pride for gay people, but in essence they're shoving their private lives in the faces of people who have no interest or desire to know about it.
Why don't more people agree with this? What happens in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom. And why must we define ourselves by who we choose to have sex with, have relationships with, etc.?
You bring up some very good points here: my S.O. had a grad school class with a couple of young black women who kept taking every issue discussed in class and turning it into a race issue. While I acknowledge that there still exist plenty of bigoted, racist, ignorant and intolerant people in this world, I also have to say that there is just as much bigotry, racism, ignorance and intolerance coming from those who claim it is happening to them! It's a simple case of making something an issue that doesn't need to be one!
Differ shmiffer. The game IS about enjoying yourself, but if you're role-playing correctly, what and who you know and what and who your character knows are two different things, or at least should come from totally different avenues. Make friends with players who have the same interest as you AS A PLAYER, but keep that in out-of-game forums or non-general channels. The in-game chat channels (and guilds and such) are reserved for your CHARACTERS and your IN-CHARACTER interactions. Out-of-game and off-topic issues, such as topics that concern the real world, should be kept in their respective venues. Keep it in a private channel, use TeamSpeak, talk about in online forums, but keep it out of General Chat channels, ESPECIALLY on RP servers.
Am I the only one who understands the concept of role-playing and RP servers?
Then society is at fault for making such a big deal about who people choose to have sex with. In a perfect world, where people are sensitive and don't concern themselves with matters that don't concern them and people keep their private lives properly private, this wouldn't be an issue at ALL. People wouldn't gay-bash not just because they don't hate gays but also because gays would keep their private lives private.
But this isn't a perfect world, and insensitivity and immaturity reign supreme. You call it bigotry, I call it a business doing their best to make money. When you accuse Blizzard of valuing one groups' money over anothers', that may be bigotry, but it's also capitalism. It's called finding your target audience and not letting the minority groups sway you from your projected goals. It may be exclusionary or insensitive, but in the end, it's what makes them the most money, and honestly, they're in the business of making money. They're not the federal government, where they HAVE disallow any and all discrimination - they're a private business and they're allowed to use whatever policies they wish in order to make money. If you live in this country and are part of the capitalist economy, you may not like it, but you have to agree that they're doing what works.
Also, since you missed the subtle sarcasm, I'm sure you missed the fact that I pulled no punches and called out ALL sides of this debate.
I wish you hadn't posted as AC because this is a great point to be making.
And to the people who inevitably come back with "well then why is homosexuality so prevalent in the animal kingdom?" Well then maybe the animals who do it are just as "maladaptive" as the humans who do. It still doesn't change the fact that sex, at its core, is about procreation - that's why guys spooge and women cream. It's all about paving the way for future generations to be born. The fact that sex also feels really good doesn't change the fact that "insert Tab P into Slot V" is the way that nature intended and just because someone at some point found that if you "insert Tab P into Slot M (or AH, or what-have-you)" it feels just as good doesn't mean it's also the way nature intended.
It was satire and sarcasm, nitwit. Glad you could see that...
Teamspeak is an out-of-game function. I'm all for TeamSpeak because it gives players a way to keep general off-topic chat out of the general on-topic chat channels. And if you want to group together with your friends, significant others, whatever, that's fine - I do it myself from time to time. But it's STILL a game, whether you do it with your friends or not. And if you're playing a role-playing server, while on the in-game chat channels and in-game in general, you should still remain in character (in a pure and perfect world, at least).
Don't get me wrong: Blizzard should be taking action against those who make inflammatory comments towards people who choose not to distance their online character from their own real-life self. But with homosexuality being such a hot-button and inflammatory issue in and of itself, I think they're well within their rights to preclude any kind of behavior that would lead to said immature and insensitive behavior.
Out of context, two different points, argumentative, whatever.
While those were two different points I was making (read the context), I can still make it without your insipid "ERROR": people try to bring real-life into a fantasy game and then they have to perform that real-life act in public (within the game) in areas where if they performed it in real life would not be condoned by our society. If you're gonna argue that WoW is an extension of real life and that you should be allowed to perform real-life acts like sex and love within it, then you should at least stick to the implicit code of decency that says "don't have sex in public (public lewdness)" and "don't have sex on someone else's property without their permission (trespassing and public lewdness)". Thing is, within WoW, it is impossible to adhere to those two guidelines.
TO HELL with people who possess the courage to damn the same people you're paying $15/mo -- and continuing to pay $15/mo. Or have you already quit? If so, this was misleading:
Part frustration, part satire, part sarcasm - GOD, things like this are just so lost on people. The internet does NOTHING to convey tone of voice or inflection or any of the other subtle tell signs that show a person isn't 100% serious.
And oh yeah, I forgot to show my credentials as a prophet of said GOD saying that I actually have the power to condemn people and make it stick... [EXTREME SARCASM]
TO HELL with those who can't tell the difference between "finicky" and "outraged at the sheer bigotry of it all".
I can tell the difference. If you want to be outraged and call it bigotry, you're welcome to do so. I personally just don't care, and would like to continue playing WoW (answering your question above) without hearing the offended minority tell me why I should be offended when I'm not. Does this make me a bigot? I don't care. If you have a right to be offended, I have a right to not care.
TO HELL with you
I'll see you at the Brimstone Mixer.
Your forgeting intersexuals...
First off, it's "you're". Second off, I didn't forget them - I believe "or whatever" includes anyone not hetero- or homo-, as I listed first and second. I could have written bi- or trans-, but I didn't for the sake of brevity.
your saying that we should just ignore how we were born and choose a sex or leave WoW?
Yes! My wife hates the fact that in Tony Hawk's American Wasteland you can't play Story Mode as a female character. So she doesn't play it. She can bitch about it, but nobody is forcing her to play the game. Activision had NO obligation to anyone to make that feature available, but the consumer also has the right to be annoyed by it. Does Activision have to change its game to suit my wife's tastes when obviously the game sold well enough without doing so? No. Does she have a right to be annoyed? Yes. Does that mean that because a select group of people are annoyed with what could be perceived as an exclusionary tactic on the part of a manufacturer of games to a niche market mean that the product is completely wrong and should be boycotted? No - this is the main point of my argument. You make your choice and I'll make mine. And lest you forget my other point, WoW is role-playing - it shouldn't be a complete extension of your actual self anyway - it's not real life!
because when comes down to it many children younger than 5 have to deal with this...
BUZZ! I'm stopping you right there. WoW is rated M for Mature. 5-year-olds have NO business playing it.
society just needs to accept that since people like myself exist...
Sure, public society should be more sensitive to diversions from the median (mathematically and statistically speaking - I don't mean that in any kind of a derogatory way), but again, we're not talking about a public society - we're talking about a private society. If WoW wants to be exclusionary for whatever reason (hey, maybe it would cost too much money to completely rework the game to allow genederless characters - who knows?), that's their right as a private entity. You don't have to like it, but others don't have to be deprived of enjoying it just because you are.
Is that in response to that particular quote? Cuz I was using WoW as a fer-instance of keeping what happens in the bedroom in the bedroom. In any case, you don't have programmers or American sports (apart from Capture the Flag) or gastronomes (whatever the hell those are) in WoW, and if you're on an RP server, then no, that shouldn't be there. If you're role-playing, your character shouldn't have any damn clue what programming or sports or gastronomes are, so why form a guild around it?
You're missing the point on two fronts here:
1) The reasoning for their decision was NOT in the matter of judging the lifestyle, but rather that they know their customer base and they know that there are those who would not be able to handle the information of one's sexual orientation in a mature manner. It's more like saying, "Look, I know you're homosexual, but when you're at my house, I'd appreciate if you didn't mention it because otherwise my friends will yell and scream and shout at you and might try to beat you within an inch of your life." It's the equivalent of dousing the match instead of the getting rid of the gunpowder - defusing the situation before it has a chance to combust.
2) Your quote is fine for the "live and let live" argument, but inside a MMOG is NOT the "privacy of your own home" - it's within the public of Blizzard's server, and obviously, different rules must apply.
Actually, I didn't forget the last step:
But for the love of God, let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money.
If you don't like something, you don't have to like it - that's your choice. But the rest of us who do like it are entitled to like it and should be allowed to like it without hearing all the reasons why we shouldn't - that's OUR choice.
Forgot one:
TO HELL with people who are getting hung up on this kind of bullshit. We've got wars, people starving, rising temperatures, political unrest and corruption, rising health care costs, rising costs of living, rising crime rates, rising stupidity and obesity (though those have more attainable solutions than the others - start thinking and stop eating!)... There are plenty more things in the world to be focused and riled up over besides whether fictional characters are allowed to pork each other or not.
TO HELL with Blizzard for their intolerant tolerance policy. Take a stand and do something about the players who don't play by your rules - don't cut off a nose to spite a face.
/ Night Elves in WoW? No. Can you contract a sexually transmitted disease in WoW? No. Can you form any kind of meaningful, lasting bond with anyone that exists entirely within the game and doesn't require actual real-life interaction in order to keep it from getting stale because of limitations of software and hardware? No. It's a game and it's a computer - a data stream can't cuddle next to you in bed, a purely online buddy can't massage your shoulders, and an avatar can't make you breakfast the next morning. Get over it and keep what you do in the bedroom IN THE BEDROOM. Last I checked, you can't own a house in WoW, so if you're making hay, you're either doing it in public, or you're doing it on someone else's property without their permission - and neither of those is condoned in our society.
TO HELL with immature intolerant WoW players who can't be bothered to live and let live and allow people to make whatever choices they wish without ridiculing, tormenting, and otherwise being assholes toward people who happen to think or act differently from your perverted view of the normal world.
TO HELL with pathetic lifeless types who have to bring real life into a fantasy game. It's fantasy for a reason - it shouldn't be like real life. Role-playing has its uses and applications, but in the end, it's pretending and doesn't mean anything in the real world. Your avatar in WoW shouldn't be an exact extension of you in an online game anyway - that's what role-playing is: being someone you aren't.
TO HELL with people trying to insert sexuality (hetero, homo, or otherwise) into a situation that has no place for it. Can you give birth to little Taurens/Undeads/Orcs/Trolls/Humans/Dwarves/Gnomes
TO HELL with people forgetting that World of Warcraft is privately owned, privately operated, and they can choose whatever the hell they god damn jolly well please to have going on in their game. If they choose not to allow certain things, they are within their rights to do so. If you have a problem with it, LEAVE! Don't give them your money. But for the love of God, let us other less-finicky souls choose what we will and will not do with our time and money. Consumerism is a choice - take responsibility for your purchases and don't expect the manufacturers to tailor a wide-ranged product to your narrow views.
I don't agree that "faith" is evil, merely that man has a knack for taking a good idea and driving it into the dirt. Common sense is on its way out, and reason isn't far behind it - I wonder what bandwagon is next on the horizon for all the intellectual elitists to jump onto...
I already covered that. I don't think ID or creationism has a place in a science class, but I don't think the ideas should go unlearned in a general sense, like perhaps a philosophy class, or one on religious studies that encompasses many origin beliefs (myths, creation stories, call them what you will). And I'm not talking about making the kids believe them, but they should at least be aware that there are people who believe them... and they shouldn't be taught that people who believe are ancient neanderthals either.
You said if anyone told YOU that statement, not your kids. You're an educated person who has come to his own conclusion about what he believes of the origins of the universe and of our species. If a person tries to get you to believe what they believe, then yes, by all means, you have every right to defend what you believe. But in our scenario, you opted not to say "that's nice" and let them believe what they want, and instead you turned right around and attempted to force YOUR beliefs on them before they had a chance to.
Y'know what? There's nothing wrong with letting someone believe something that you think is complete bullshit. Hell, that's what tolerance is all about. As long as they're not foisting their beliefs on you, there's no reason for you to do the same first.
And while we're on the subject, what, exactly, is the harm in someone believing that the earth is only 6000 years old? (Not saying I believe it, but just asking the harm in believing it.) Does it really make a difference in how we live our lives now if the earth is 6000 years old or 6,000,000,000 years old or 6 seconds old (though that last one would give some pause)? We're here, we're conscious, we've got a lot of things more important ahead of us than where we may or may not have been - let's stop living in the past!
The original debate, yes.
However, because of this debate -- and I can attest that this is happening because my wife had it happen to her in one of her grad school classes -- people who profess a belief in creationism or ID (not necessarily in the context of whether or not it should be taught in science classes) are being ridiculed for holding what others feel to be an outdated dinosaur of a belief. As if everyone has to believe in evolution (or the Big Bang, or whatever) or they're ignorant, fooling themselves, an idiot, a moron, a neanderthal, whatever. "How can you still believe in that???" is a very dangerous thing to hear when we're talking about someone's religious beliefs, especially in a country where one of our essential freedoms is the freedom of religion.
I hate to burst your bubble here, but religion does not have a monopoly on value systems. The two are not equal, which is what you just stated.
I used religious beliefs as a "fer-instance". Values systems also include sexual morality, etiquette, basic human decency, etc. I only mentioned religion because that seems to be the crux of the ID debate.
We do have a non-religious value system. It's codified in our laws. We can teach those values in school without stepping on parental toes.
Do NOT get me started on the dangers inherent in legislating morality. And I'm not talking about stepping on parental toes - I'm talking about replacing parental feet altogether. I'm not talking about children who get taught by both their parents and the schools - I'm talking about the children whose parents are too lazy or too apathetic to teach the kids themselves and leave it all for the schools to do. Parents who take responsibility in their child's upbringing, whether it be teaching good moral lessons, taking an active interest in the media their kids are exposed to, helping them to direct them in the way they should go - those are the ones I have no problem with. It's the parents who plop their kids in front of the TV or computer, send them off to school, and expect the schools to teach them everything they should - those are the ones I'm terrified of, the ones who make me reluctant to bring a child into this world.
As for belief in creationism, that's fine, believe whatever you want. If you believe God set up the laws of physics and set the universe in motion knowing the outcome, that is a form of creationism, and I'll buy that as a possibility (though not scientifically testable).
That is what I believe... I don't believe the absolute literal translation of the Bible, because in many ways I'm a skeptic, and while I do believe it be inspired by God, I don't believe that the writers didn't have their own slant or bias to it. And really, who would have been there at the beginning of creation besides God to see it?
As for the rest of your reply, I thought you were doing well up to that point. But it's this extremist point of view that makes the debate oh-so-hotbutton. "Oh, well, if you believe creationism over evolution, then you don't believe in any science and you should just go live in a cave somewhere." With so much uncertainty in this world, the human mind can't come down on one side or the other without there being glaring conflicts and so there has to be some point of reconciliation between what is known and what is unknown. Unfortunately, with the way our species is so polarized in its thinking, it has to be either one way or the other - there's no way for the two to coexist without ridicule from people on either side of the debate.
As for your last point, to quote Douglas Adams, "There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."