SW:TOR - No Homosexuality

[DArtagnan]

You keep talking about how Hitler "misused" National Socialism and that his "interpretations" were wrong. You also mentioned that "not all of nazisim" is bad. I'm waiting to hear what parts of the Nazi Ideology you think are cool. I'm sorry man, but you're acting like an apologist for the Nazis. This would make...the third time. No, maybe some Nazis didn't think the Jews would end up in camps and gassed or cremated, but they wanted them as third-class citizens or expelled from the country - the Nazis wanted a genocide, and they got one.

I don't think there's anything "cool" about Nazism or Fascism (from which most of it can be derived). It's a pretty extreme point of view that I disagree with at the core, but like all systems - there were some interesting and challenging ideas.

You don't have to apologize, and I must say I find it pretty amusing that you suspect I'm a Nazi - or think I'm apologizing for them somehow.

In fact, it's so amusing and your opinion of me so insignificant that I'll let it be, just for the heck of it

 

[DArtagnan]

Or so you think. I'd warn you against complacency, though: it's very easy to rationalize emotional prejudices away. I believe there's a good chance that you're doing exactly that, rather than genuinely examining them objectively.

While your opinion of what I might be doing here is mildly interesting, it's based on an amount of information that's so insignificant that I can't take it seriously.

Beyond that, it's hardly useful to our debate.

Why don't you assume for argument's sake that I'm doing exactly what I say I'm doing, and then maybe you can "catch" me contradicting myself.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Nor would I want it to.

And now you're done with that work? Are you sure? No more room left for improvement there?

I'm not sure that kind of work is ever done. That said, I've been quite happy with this aspect of my personality for a number of years. I don't think I can evolve much further in this way, but fortunately there are so many other ways to evolve.

But you should note that it might be the one aspect that I've worked the hardest on, and which has been easier for me than it seems to be for others - because my nature has allowed me to set aside my emotions with greater ease than most people. That's how it's seemed to me, anyway.

Given what you've said about the Nazis, that doesn't exactly surprise me either.

Exactly what are you saying here?

Strong democracies based on the idea of not restricting individual liberty without due cause, and with strong built-in protections for minorities, are the best solution we've discovered so far, IMO.

So, are you saying we have that kind of democracy in place somewhere?

 

[Rithrandil]

I don't think there's anything "cool" about Nazism or Fascism (from which most of it can be derived). It's a pretty extreme point of view that I disagree with at the core, but like all systems - there were some interesting and challenging ideas.

You don't have to apologize, and I must say I find it pretty amusing that you suspect I'm a Nazi - or think I'm apologizing for them somehow.

In fact, it's so amusing and your opinion of me so insignificant that I'll let it be, just for the heck of it

Well, I wouldn't apologize regardless, so you don't have to worry about that. But when you talk about Hitler "misusing" these ideas (when fighting 'international jewry' was a tenant since the party's foundation), or how 'not all Nazis agreed', and talk about how 'national socialism held plenty of interesting ideas that could have worked out under different circumstances'. You also keep saying that what Hitler did with his "version" of it wans't what the "founders had in mind".

And, the big one, once again:

It's - again - not necessarily the ideas that are wrong, but our interpretation and ways of putting them into practice

So the idea that Jews are responsible for all of the evils besetting Germany and are greedy and not as worthy as the Aryan people is NOT wrong, only how they went about putting said idea into pratice?

You're an apologist.

 

[DArtagnan]

Hm. Is it me, or are you getting hung up on individual words a lot lately?

Given what we have to work with on a public forum, is that so wrong of me?

But, you're saying you didn't actually mean what you said?

So, why did you say it - as I'm not really sure I got the humor aspect.

There's the danger of reaching incorrect or invalid conclusions.

Oh, and your method of ignoring the official definitions is safe, then? That's right, we can always "refine" along the way.

Cough.

Funny, I got the impression that your intent was to resolve the dispute on semantics we were having when you brought up that dictionary definition. I wonder how I could've gotten that impression...

My intent was to use the dictionary to help us resolve the dispute - yeah. Like I said, it's an excellent tool that can be extremely helpful.

Nah, it's not just me. You *are* getting hung up on individual words and phrases.

Is this another way of "refining" things as we go along? So you just take things back and claim I'm "hung up" on words whenever I point out what you really didn't mean.

Yes, I was sort of suspecting that.

What do you mean?

There's also the possibility that you're entirely truthful, even to yourself. However, I'm not convinced yet that this is more likely than the alternatives. If there are other possibilities, let's hear 'em!

I think that covers it, really.

But I can understand your scepticism, and believe me I get that all the time. Most people don't believe me when I tell them they've never met anyone quite like myself before.

It works wonders with the ladies when they find I'm not kidding

Well, it doesn't really make all that much difference to me what you think either, so I guess we're quits on that score.

So it would seem.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, I wouldn't apologize regardless, so you don't have to worry about that.

I'm sorry man, but you're acting like an apologist for the Nazis

You're an apologist.

Actually, you're the apologist.

*kisses*

PS

To be polite, I should add that you're placed on ignore. I don't feel anything beneficial can come from further exchange - even if you remain amusing.

 

[Rithrandil]

Actually, you're the apologist.

*kisses*

PS

To be polite, I should add that you're placed on ignore. I don't feel anything beneficial can come from further exchange - even if you remain amusing.

And in English "I'm sorry" doesn't always mean an actual apology, for instance, my response to what you just posted:

I'm sorry, but you're acting like a five year old.

Am I apologizing? No. It's an idiom. And it's fine with me if you place me on ignore, since you can't even address an issue with a rational response

PS

And I guess I should be polite in saying that I'm glad you're conceding the point that you are a Nazi sympathizer.

 

[Prime Junta]

To be polite, I should add that you're placed on ignore. I don't feel anything beneficial can come from further exchange - even if you remain amusing.

Hey, that's a great idea. I think I'll follow your example. Plonk!

 

[DArtagnan]

Hehe, I knew that was coming from PJ

 

[woges]

It's come full circle then you Sean Dahlbergs.

 

[skavenhorde]

Yep, we're back to the ignore list. Up until this point it's been an interesting read to say the least.

 

[Prime Junta]

Whew, this was the worst train wreck of a thread I've been on for a quite a while. Glad to provide some entertainment, at least.

 

[skavenhorde]

Always PJ, you never fail to entertain or try to bring reason to the masses

 

[Rithrandil]

I am sad it didn't even stay on the topic of the ethics of what Bioware did. That's a fun topic with a lot of areas to discuss.

 

[JemyM]

Am I the only one thinking it's crap they make an MMO out of KOTOR? That pretty much seals the deal for no KOTOR3 doesn't it? I recently ordered Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide for the Saga Edition roleplaying game from Denmark recently (sold out over most of Europe).

 

[DArtagnan]

Am I the only one thinking it's crap they make an MMO out of KOTOR? That pretty much seals the deal for no KOTOR3 doesn't it? I recently ordered Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide for the Saga Edition roleplaying game from Denmark recently (sold out over most of Europe).

Bioware had to get into the MMO market, I guess.

I'd have loved a third KOTOR - but I'm not sure it's completely ruled out. Especially if The Old Republic catches on. It'd be free money, basically - no matter how crappy they make it.

 

[Hedek]

I am sad it didn't even stay on the topic of the ethics of what Bioware did. That's a fun topic with a lot of areas to discuss.

I agree.

That pretty much seals the deal for no KOTOR3 doesn't it?

Short term yes. Long term, as long as the Old Republic franchise remains strong, there is hope. Poor SW:TOR sales and/or subscribers (below 500k sales and 100k subs) might kill the entire Old Republic franchise though.

 

[Oxlar]

Again, democracy != tyranny of the majority. Democracy is based on the idea of maximizing liberty and participation in the political process for everyone. That means that the majority does not restrict the rights of minorities without due cause. (As an example of 'due cause,' I would mention language rights: it makes sense that the majority language(s) have a privileged position relative to minority languages, simply because providing an equal level of services in all languages would impose an undue burden on everybody.)

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

No, but its the next step towards tyranny.


*edit*
hrmmmm, well I was going to rebuttle previous rebuttles, but they would have been filled with YOU FAIL AT READING. And I can see that the argument has dwindled down and reverted back to bioware and SW. So, I'll just leave you with this great video above and spend my time on more prosperous endeavors.

 

[Rithrandil]

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

No, but its the next step towards tyranny.


*edit*
hrmmmm, well I was going to rebuttle previous rebuttles, but they would have been filled with YOU FAIL AT READING. And I can see that the argument has dwindled down and reverted back to bioware and SW. So, I'll just leave you with this great video above and spend my time on more prosperous endeavors.

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

No, but its the next step towards tyranny.

And most people use "democracy" when they mean "republic", or a "representative democracy". This isn't a political science course and the hard definitions do not matter. If you're going to post a video about definitions of different governments you should be sure what you're arguing about.

You've said you're fine with a local government voting on banning the rights of homosexuals (whether it be gay marriage or adoption etc etc) if that's what the people of the local government decide to do. So you're not arguing about law (and in fact are arguing for violations of the 14th Amendment) or even the concepts of Federalist Paper #10, you're arguing about a majority group voting away the rights of a minority group. You're making the argument AGAINST what Madison wanted - you're the large faction taking out the rights of the smaller faction. You're not arguing for Rule of Law at this point and personal liberty, you're arguing for restrictions of said liberties for groups solely because you do not like what they do, regardless of harm it brings to society or not.

 

[Toaster]

Way to redefine words to not match modern usage! Republics and monarchies are widely understood to be forms of government, while democracy and dictatorship/oligarchy are principles of government. Democracy does NOT mean mob rule. I know I've seen these confused definitions here not long ago as well, but that doesn't make them any more useful or good.

Also, why replace the left-right scale with ANOTHER one-dimensional scale, when combining the two to make a 2D-spectrum actually makes a lot more sense..?

 

[Prime Junta]

And most people use "democracy" when they mean "republic", or a "representative democracy". This isn't a political science course and the hard definitions do not matter. If you're going to post a video about definitions of different governments you should be sure what you're arguing about.

Specifically, in modern political science, 'democracy' refers to a principle of government ('of, by, and for the people'), whereas 'republic' refers to a form of government (by some kind of chamber of representatives, with executive power usually vested in some kind of cabinet of ministers or a president). There are nondemocratic republics (e.g. Cuba, Iran, or North Korea), and democratic non-republics (e.g. Sweden, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom). The original, Aristotelian use of 'democracy' to refer to, effectively, mob rule, is only in active use by Americans of a certain, specific political persuasion. I'm not sure why, but I surmise that it's fundamentally a rhetorical trick to discredit another political party in the same country, which has 'Democratic' in its name.